A Pair of Jack Planes

[D_W]

1) Hone the iron
2) Take a light cut
3) Set cap iron close until the plane stops cutting.
4) Then move it back a hair.
5) Have another strategy for curves, modern thin veneers, and those times when 1-4 won't work.

You're welcome.

All of this has been in Planecraft since the 1920's and later through six or seven editions and special reprints.

I can't help but think of the surfaces that James Krenov, Art Carpenter, Alan Peters, Jere Osgood and those of that era were (are in the case of Osgood) able to achieve. They look(ed) damn good to me. Not sure how they did it, exactly, but I think it involved other tools and techniques than a hand plane only approach. It had to on the curved work, yet quality appears not to have suffered.

We're losing perspective, gentlemen. People who can barely work wood (compared to those in the list above) have somehow become standard setters and 'experts.' It's absurd. It's like Van Gogh following the lead of an eight year old with a box of crayons and a coloring book. Ridiculous. On. Its. Face.

What you set is a scorched earth cap iron setting that would take a while to do, take only a light cutting, and not representative of practically setting the cap iron which can be summed more easily by more vague terms (which is what Warren does, and why people get upset because they want a recipe list like you provided).

When the cap iron stuff started happening publicly, Bill Tindall and I mentioned behind the scenes that we expected that either nobody would pay attention to it or all of the sudden people would start looking in texts for past references and claim that they knew it all along. Turns out to be the latter. Like this.

Except that someone who uses the cap iron a fair amount would know that what you referenced isn't a very practical method, it's time consuming and it ignores the bulk of work where the cap is more useful, and a setting where it is less intrusive (and generally more useful).

Only warren ever described an accurate but vague method for setup, and quickly helped when I started posting findings (as in, there's no setting a cap iron until the plane doesn't cut - that's the kind of thing you'd do on day one in a beginner's class to show people that a plane will not cut if the cap is set on the edge of the iron).

The only legitimate in practice reference I've seen (but it was after the fact) was that someone mentioned graham blackburn discussing the cap iron in a class. Apparently, the people that took the class were too dense to ever mention what they'd seen.

I'm still waiting for the pre-2012 mentions by anyone about setting the cap iron, because mostly the response to warren was verbal assault for trolling about the cap iron. Charlie, you've been on forums for probably a dozen years or more, and many have permanent archives. I'm sure you can bring up an example of what you put above talking about using the cap iron before 2012, right?

And most of the references since have been people saying they know how to use a cap iron, but they use something else to finish wood when it's difficult or slow to use a plane. Warren has a line for that, and it's accurate.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

There's a page or so in the book 'The Tool Chest of Benjamin Seaton' outlining some historical research on the Hildick dynasty. They were a firm of whitesmiths in the Birmingham area who leased a blade mill in 1692 in Coalpool (near Walsall, about 8 miles NW of Birmingham). The irons relevant to Seaton's planes were almost certainly made there, but in the 19th century, the family set up in Sheffield under the name Aaron Hildick. That firm traded for over a century, until as Ashley Iles notes in his autobiography, they bought out the firm of Henry Taylor some time in the late 1950s or early 1960s. For some reason, Hildick's changed the firm's name to that of the company they'd absorbed (maybe they thought the mane was more 'modern' and a better marketing proposition), and the Henry Taylor firm continues to trade to this day.

Irons marked 'Aaron Hildick' or just 'Hildick' crop up quite a bit. Occasionally, an older one marked 'Hildik' surfaces, too.

Edit to add - after a bit of rummaging about, I found this which slightly contradicts some of the information above -

"One of the main offshoot branches of the family occurs here and Aaron* will be followed here for a while as one of his descendants married back as a cousin into the extended family of Thomas (1665) offspring.



*Aaron (1705) married Martha (maiden name unknown).



They had 8 children but although I have details of all of them I will follow only one, their eldest son Thomas b 1728 in Rushall.

He married Mary Tennant in 1755 at St Mathews Church in Walsall.

Thomas 1728 also had a son Thomas b1758. This Thomas married Ann Worallo and their son Aaron b1795 married the Elizabeth Dukes featured below, where we get a hint of the Hildike origins and of the origins of family firm Aaron Hildick Ltd.



Aaron Hildick Ltd was based in Sheffield, the family had moved there from Walsall after Aarons marriage to Elizabeth Dukes. He founded the family firm together with his nephew Robert (1853), the son of Sarah Hildick who was Aaron and Elizabeth Hildicks eldest child.



Robert took over the firm when Aaron died in the late 1800’s although I have not yet found his date of death. The firm seems to have passed down this line through Roberts family, principally to Ernest Thornton, husband of his daughter Beatrice. Ernest died in 1940 and was sold to another company at the end of WW2. The firm produced very high quality blades for woodworking under the brand name “Diamic”, a name which exists today. The company was allied to Henry Taylor Ltd in 1948 and in 1974 the company became Henry Taylor Ltd (proprietor Aaron Hildick). In 1974 it became Henry Taylor (Tools) Ltd incorporating Aaron Hildick. The company is still in business, situated on Lowther Street in Sheffield and is one of the few firms still producing tools which largely depend upon the manual skills of the workforce."

 

[D_W]

This scurrying around trying to interpolate angles, translations, and generally parsing to the nth degree some silly-a$$ed Japanese video really has gone quite far enough. The next think you know we'll be critiquing the cut of their respective lab coats, there really isn't much else is there? It totally plucks and pulls the whole issue out of any reasonable context.

Hyperbole.

The discussions started before the videos were out, and then when it did come out, they (either from warren or anyone else who had learned to use the cap iron properly) were steered in a way so as to suggest that the video was proof that the cap does something, but not a good reference for actually using the cap iron in hand tools beyond that.

Any of the legitimate discussions following that mentioned the same thing. No jigs, no specific measurements and no copying the video.

The sense of moving the cap iron around a lot is inaccurate, and the notion of moving it way off of the edge of the iron is also unnecessary for anything other than planing 2x4s in a construction setting.

 

[D_W]

DW Going back to your original posting, the blade maker may well have been James (I think - I'm not close to the workshop atm) Hilditch, although I have a wooden jointer with a Hilditch Chip breaker, married to a Herring blade, a combination I have seen on a number of occasions. Andy T would be more likely to have the best information, if it is of interest.
Regards Mike

Thanks Mike. That prompted me to go back and look, as i have other irons with the same mark (the foreground jack plane is out the door, so I can't check it).

The maker is Aaron Hildick, but the irons are relatively modern looking in terms of finish (they are still tapered with the old style cap iron and top brass fixture on the cap). One of the reasons I seem to get all English irons is that the English held on to making attractive double iron sets much longer than the american makers. hardness is still slightly variable in the irons, but never to a level that affects usability.

American makers (like what became Ohio Tool) took all of the visual extravagance out of their sets, removed the brass fixture (which isn't needed in steel) and generally made fairly ugly irons. I've had trouble with one ohio tool iron and one auburn iron and don't put them in planes while I have other better options. Not to say that most aren't good, they are, but it's not worth the risk when the wood costs 50 bucks or more.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I can't help but think of the surfaces that James Krenov, Art Carpenter, Alan Peters, Jere Osgood and those of that era were (are in the case of Osgood) able to achieve. They look(ed) damn good to me. Not sure how they did it, exactly, but I think it involved other tools and techniques than a hand plane only approach. It had to on the curved work, yet quality appears not to have suffered.

I have no idea about the others, but as far as I can determine, Krenov did not use the chipbreaker to control tearout. Instead, he took "paper thin" shavings, to quote him in The Fine Art of Cabinetmaking.

None of his writing, again as far as I can tell, mention using the chipbreaker. The pictures of his shavings in his books indicate that he was only interested in fine shavings (none have the look of a closed chipbreaker).

When he sent me one of his smoothers, I took measurements of everything. He had been using the plane earlier, and it was set for use (as he had last used it), and he included some of the last shavings he took. The mouth was tight - too tight to use with a close set chipbreaker. I recorded that the chipbreaker was set 1/8" from the back of the bevel.

And yet he certainly achieved superior surfaces. That was what he was the master of.

Regards from Perth

Derek

What was the pitch of the plane Derek?

45 degrees, Charles ...

Mouth ...

Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... other.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

I can't help but think of the surfaces that James Krenov, Art Carpenter, Alan Peters, Jere Osgood and those of that era were (are in the case of Osgood) able to achieve. They look(ed) damn good to me. Not sure how they did it, exactly, but I think it involved other tools and techniques than a hand plane only approach. It had to on the curved work, yet quality appears not to have suffered.
k a hair.
5) Have another st
We're losing perspective, gentlemen. People who can barely work wood (compared to those in the list above) have somehow become standard setters and 'experts.' It's absurd. It's like Van Gogh following the lead of an eight year old with a box of crayons and a coloring book. Ridiculous. On. Its. Face.

Krenov's not a model to follow for productivity or practice. He apparently made his living mostly as a model maker and then with students (and later with books).

If I were going to look for what works in practice, I'd at least want to find someone who made their living as a maker, and not an instructor.

As far as the rest of the discussion, design and proportion are lacking for discussion purposes. I see your complaints often, but then you refer to a lot of danish modern or industrial design era furniture. If you want to awaken the sense of people, maybe you should take it upon yourself to learn and teach others about classical design, which looks far less dated. Instead of complaining about it.

I don't care much if someone else sands or scrapes their furniture as long as they don't do a poor job designing. I don't care to sand at all, and I don't care to scrape when I don't have to. It doesn't mean that I'd care if anyone else did it. It certainly takes less time for me to make a piece of case dovetailed and moulded now without sanding than it would've if I finish sanded it, and it looks better, but better is to my eyes and the average person looking at one of my plain cases will never see the pins and tails (they're covered) and will not even know what a moulding is if it doesn't have the word "crown" in front of it.

We do our work predominantly for ourselves, and there's no great reason for us to talk about much unless we want to bear the burden of figuring out how to do something better than we can just buy or see commonly. I talk about planes a lot because it was my objective to figure out the types and then how to make a plane better than one that I can buy (what's the point of making a throw away plane when used planes are cheap?). I have gotten to that point, but only because the subject planes that I like are 175 years old and they have moved some. Years ago, I'd thought about buying larry's planes, but they will leave you with extra hours of work if you want to actually use them for dimensioning, and so i never bought one and only made one of that design.

Thus, planes are what I talk about. If you're concerned about design, then you should talk about that, too. The only person I see seriously helping people with design questions is George - and warren does it from time to time. There is a need for it, I can plainly see that with what people make.

 

[Trafalgar]

David, you're focus is on the wrong set of woodworkers (me, for sure). I can't for the life of me understand your infatuation with relatively obscure craftspeople, with the exception of Graham Blackburn who has been strangely silent, in his otherwise prolific writing, about how he achieves the planing performance he claims. They've struck some sort of chord with you but one can't quite tease out exactly what it is.

When somebody mentions Krenov, Frid, Peters, Gilpin, Carpenter, et al. you counter with Warren Mickley? It's perplexing to say the least. Whether or not you care for the style of furniture these guys built is beside the point with respect to the issue we're discussing. These men achieved stunning surfaces and through a variety of techniques and tools (including the cap iron most likely). It's not even debatable. And they did it on flat surfaces, curved surfaces, veneered surfaces, and everything in-between and when this is pointed out to you all you can manage to come up with is Bill Tindal and Warren Mickley. I'm at a loss. Reason, the rational center, and more are totally getting lost in all of this strident and overwrought silliness about cap irons.

 

[D_W]

I mention warren because warren makes a living in a shop that doesn't use electric tools by making and restoring items. He doesn't write books, he didn't make models and he's not employed by any colleges. He makes his money by his work. I'm not particularly interested in krenov, nor anyone else who didn't have much of a demand for productivity.

I would mention George also, but George has relied on power tools and has a lot of fascinations that have nothing to do with making furniture (he'll tell you outright that he's too interested, and to be honest, he can go up the ladder and make more interesting things than furniture can hope to be). George will also tell you forthright that he was pigeonholed into using a certain type of plane for anything he did at the museum because the curators told them what they had to use. He literally wouldn't have been able to take a double iron plane to his bench in the museum, or make them for the other people working there, because the curators were convinced they weren't common.

It was reported from a single person that Blackburn gave a lecture called something like "any plane, any direction" that involved setting the cap iron. To me, personally, that was the appeal of the double iron, to be able to put a panel on the bench and work it without having to change sides regardless of whether the wood had unexpected hiccups in it or not. I would have to assume to make such a comment, he knows how to use the double iron or the first person who gave him a stanley plane would vex him.

If I were interested in furniture (i'm not, particularly at this point, but I still expect to be able to make cases that are tasteful and make furniture with appropriate joints and then cover them up), I would want something equivalent (to learn) to hasluck's carving book. A treatise on furniture when it was fine, not when it became modern art.

I never mentioned Bill Tindall as a maker of anything. I specifically described Bill as the person who went to the trouble to dig up the video, but the video didn't change my direction on trying to find what made a practical plane for when planes were used to do anything a power jointer and thickness plane does now. I'd concluded everything in the wood central article before the video was ever retrieved, it just makes a handy tool for the dense crowds who argue "chris schwarz says" when you saying something along the lines of discarding the gaggle of gentleman's planes and putting three double iron planes under your bench. For two months before the video came out, I said the exact same thing, but all I got was "nobody else does that except for warren, it's not common". Then when the video appeared (which has nothing to do with hand woodworking), then dense throngs are somehow into it, and the predictable response is to try to imitate what the video said was optimal when studying something intended to be used on a maruka super surfacer.

I mention warren, Warren makes. Your whole argument about curved surfaces is something you bring up on your own as if someone said that a stanley 4 should be used on them. Nobody should have to specify that they're doing flatwork when they talk about it, it's a given.

(for what it's worth, I've seen you make some nice tight work that's on your etsy page - which inexplicably lists your location as vermont - maybe that's a suburb in tennessee...I don't know. I, and many others, sure wish you would spend time describing your own work and what you're doing and why - especially as it relates to design, rather than submarining everyone who posts something useful by inundating everything with extrapolation, hyperbole and straw manning. It's exceedingly rare I've seen you describe anything, though - despite ).

 

[Trafalgar]

Ignoring the bit players and supporting cast for a moment is there anything, specifically, about cap irons that anybody is realistically missing at this point?

What issue or issues are still up in the air? I would honestly like to see these articulated by someone who had made it their business to know.

The thrust from certain quarters seems to be that if one doesn't achieve an absolutely pristine surface off the plane at all times and all places then one is 'doing it wrong.' Is this your position in a nutshell? How do you think this realistically squares with all the great woodworking around us?

If ever a pendulum swung too far this surely has to be it.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The thrust from certain quarters seems to be that if one doesn't achieve an absolutely pristine surface off the plane at all times and all places then one is 'doing it wrong.'

The subject of the thread is jack planes. What have 'absolutely pristine surfaces' to do with jack planes?

Please forgive my asperity, but there does seem to be a bit of personal argument or needling going on here. Could we save the personal stuff for private messaging and stick to posting about hand tools, their history and techniques of using in the public comments?

 

[Trafalgar]

Nothing. So what?

 

[D_W]

I believe warren's view is that the surface is better off of a cap iron equipped plane, and perhaps he feels it's necessary.

My view is that I don't care what you do as long as I don't see hook marks from sandpaper.

My preference not to sand is my preference, not a rule for anyone else. I scrape anything that I can't plane, though it's uncommon on a flat surface. Efficiency is the issue that I am fascinated with, as in why would a double iron eliminate single iron planes. In a time when people were scraping to get by, I have to assume it's economic necessity. I'm interested in how that makes me get something done faster, especially in the once or twice a year I have to build something that resembles furniture or cabinets.

I doubt many other people do that (or care). Either of those. I would assume most people scrape and sand (or let's be honest, most people just sand when the group is opened to include people not particularly interested in hand tools).

Let me pose a scenario that would be interesting to an intermediate woodworker:
* you build a case
* you wrap the case in mouldings that you've cut, carefully keeping crisp lines - to hide the joints
* you've planed the case surfaces before assembly, but now you have to finish them
* the wood is cherry (or soft maple or something else that may not scrape optimally)
* you inevitably come up with some spots where you've touched the case with hide glue on a finger tip by accident, etc, and the mouldings you couldn't plane to fitness because the wood quality was lacking. Or perhaps you have a joint where some glue crept out after attaching a base or a top.

What do you do?

You can certainly sand all of it, but it does take quite a bit of time to sand all of that.

It's something you can figure out and learn with some sweat equity, but I don't see running a progression of sandpaper over everything as having very good time economy, and it doubles the amount of shellac you'll use to get the piece sealed. Not that the price matters, but it's another time specific thing.

(I would scrape all of the areas that are lacking from planing, and if there is a noticeable difference in the surface, use the top side of the scraper that is left polished and without a burr to brighten the surface with light pressure, and not do anything to the already planed surfaces). It would be a minute or two and that's it.

But more important than that, I'd have decided what the style of the moulding would be, whether or not I need to build planes to complete it, what the proportions of the case are, how I'd attach (and hide the attachment) the case together and what the front trim and back would be.

Aside from the practical bits and pieces about finishing the case quickly without inundating yourself by sanding a progression of papers over the whole thing, what about the rest. How often is that stuff discussed? I can't say much. If i have a design question that I can't solve via books, I inevitably have to call George.

(you've done a poor job assuming that I've ever suggested that it's a necessity for everyone else to plane and forgo scrapers and sand paper. that's warren's view and not mine. I think the plane does a better job, of course, but it doesn't matter much if the whole piece is ugly to begin with)

 

[D_W]

I'd like to shift back to the planes, now that we've established the irons as Aaron Hildick - at least the front ones. I've got about four with that mark, maybe more than that.

In regard to the manufacture of irons in sheffield, and my previously discussed bits and pieces about the later irons maintaining the earlier look despite being obviously relatively modern process...

... do any of you guys in country know much about the history of that? In the US, it's standard practice to buy a brand after the company fails and stamp it on something that is not related to the original maker. Is that the case with the more modern irons?

I can tell on the stones that the modern irons are oil hardening steel, not water hardening. Many of them are solid, even though tapered, and a bit thinner than the older laminated irons, though plenty thick to stop you in your tracks when you've got them locked down tight with the cap iron set appropriately.

Later today, I may pull out my box and note all of the various English marks on them. I buy them on looks (if an iron looks proper for the period of planes I'm trying to build, that's good enough for me) and whether or not the cap iron is in good shape - they are often pitted badly or have been dented badly on the corners, which poses a terminal problem in a double iron plane.

 

[AndyT]

The thrust from certain quarters seems to be that if one doesn't achieve an absolutely pristine surface off the plane at all times and all places then one is 'doing it wrong.'

The subject of the thread is jack planes. What have 'absolutely pristine surfaces' to do with jack planes?

Please forgive my asperity, but there does seem to be a bit of personal argument or needling going on here. Could we save the personal stuff for private messaging and stick to posting about hand tools, their history and techniques of using in the public comments?

Seconded.

I know we all had a bit of fun in the 'modern plane irons' thread, collectively de-railing the topic and getting all sorts of miscellaneous chat into the mix, but this thread is leaving me bewildered. It feels like there must be a lot of history among a group of participants that I'm not aware of. Maybe it was on another forum?

Whatever the story is, I prefer a forum where a point is raised and constructively discussed, and if someone wants to discuss something else, they start a new thread, and explain what it is about.

 

[D_W]

One other side comment, that's of little interest, but I'll mention it, anyway. I don't know of anything other than hide glue to sink the handles in these planes and do it in a way that someone down the road will do when the handles become loose. They are tighter than the older planes I've purchased (about two thirds of the planes I've bought to try to use to learn what's good - so as to find good subject planes to learn from - the handle will come loose and need to be reglued if the planes are used in heavy work).

So, I've now made two planes that have gone to an ardent vegan, the front one included, and the first time I hadn't thought about it and used hide glue. The second time, I thought about it...and used hide glue. What will said vegans use to reglue if the handle comes loose? Polyurethane glue?

Anything else easily repairable that I come up with that fits a tight joint (hide glue, fish glue, gelatin-based glue) is animal product. It's an interesting little conundrum, but one I'm not that eager to solve (chances of sending many more planes to people aren't too great, and chances of that and finding more vegans is probably also not that great). The front plane is going to Chris Griggs, who some here might know (who is vegan, but who tolerates the hide glue even if he doesn't love it). I intended to give it to another former forum member who sent me stuff when i set out to make planes, but he is MIA and I can't get a hold of him. The back plane is quickly made and a bit ugly in the details, I made it for me and that's OK to me for planes that stay in the shop.

Someone else is making planes of this style for sale, and i would assume that more people will begin dimensioning by hand once the use is brought up. I'll reserve the parking space for complaints about how expensive it is to buy one that someone made by hand since I have taken donations on the materials in returns if someone asks to pay, but sometimes they are just free. I wouldn't want to make a plane like the front jack for less than about $300-350, and as stingy as I am, that creates a conundrum where I want to spend a fifth of that on a really nice vintage one. Unfortunately, it's hard to know what's great to buy until you know how to fix older planes, and it's hard to really know how to fix and diagnose older planes until you make some.

So, even if I have trouble unloading future planes for the cost of materials (they can just pile up in my shop for all I care if that's the case), I hope that folks who want to dimension wood by hand take it on (and by that, I mean more than just a novelty where you use a jack plane once in a while), I hope people buy older planes, study them and fix them and use them. I would assume by the recent cost of decent planes on ebay, there is starting to be some demand for planes that have little wear.

 

[D_W]

Whatever the story is, I prefer a forum where a point is raised and constructively discussed, and if someone wants to discuss something else, they start a new thread, and explain what it is about.

Agreed, I'd prefer to discuss the planes, as I've invested a lot of time and expense and the discussion of the rest that's unrelated advances nothing.

 

[AndyT]

In regard to the manufacture of irons in sheffield, and my previously discussed bits and pieces about the later irons maintaining the earlier look despite being obviously relatively modern process...

... do any of you guys in country know much about the history of that? In the US, it's standard practice to buy a brand after the company fails and stamp it on something that is not related to the original maker. Is that the case with the more modern irons?

There are many examples of Sheffield marks being traded as intellectual property long after the demise of the original maker or his company.
For instance, virtually the whole of the Marples range could be had branded as "I Sorby" if you preferred. If you wanted one of their planes branded John Moseley, you could have that as well.

There is also the philosophical question of "who is the maker" - a Sheffield brand was more like a guarantee of a level of performance, applied to the work of someome who may have been an employee of, but was more likely to be a sub-contractor, to the company who owned the brand.

 

[D_W]

In regard to the manufacture of irons in sheffield, and my previously discussed bits and pieces about the later irons maintaining the earlier look despite being obviously relatively modern process...

... do any of you guys in country know much about the history of that? In the US, it's standard practice to buy a brand after the company fails and stamp it on something that is not related to the original maker. Is that the case with the more modern irons?

There are many examples of Sheffield marks being traded as intellectual property long after the demise of the original maker or his company.
For instance, virtually the whole of the Marples range could be had branded as "I Sorby" if you preferred. If you wanted one of their planes branded John Moseley, you could have that as well.

There is also the philosophical question of "who is the maker" - a Sheffield brand was more like a guarantee of a level of performance, applied to the work of someome who may have been an employee of, but was more likely to be a sub-contractor, to the company who owned the brand.

Thanks for the clarification. I'd suspected a lot of, especially the later irons, are made in the same place. The irons are done in a way that makes it seem like the same place is doing them, and the stamps are similar enough that it looks like the same maker made the stamps on the more modern irons. They are definitely less deeply marked than the older ones, but that's not surprising given that they are steel all the way to the top.

There was some of what you're describing going on in the states, but the large makers dominated the markets and made things in house out of economy and control, so what we call hardware store brands here are less common than the main makers. Same is true of rifles, etc, though once the makers of the tools and the rifles, etc, became sold names of reputation as you describe.

 

[woodbrains]

So, I've now made two planes that have gone to an ardent vegan, the front one included, and the first time I hadn't thought about it and used hide glue. The second time, I thought about it...and used hide glue. What will said vegans use to reglue if the handle comes loose? Polyurethane glue?

Anything else easily repairable that I come up with that fits a tight joint (hide glue, fish glue, gelatin-based glue) is animal product. It's an interesting little conundrum, but one I'm not that eager to solve (chances of sending many more planes to people aren't too great, and chances of that and finding more vegans is probably also not that great). The front plane is going to Chris Griggs, who some here might know (who is vegan, but who tolerates the hide glue even if he doesn't love it). I intended to give it to another former forum member who sent me stuff when i set out to make planes, but he is MIA and I can't get a hold of him. The back plane is quickly made and a bit ugly in the details, I made it for me and that's OK to me for planes that stay in the shop.

Hello,

I wonder what vegans expect happened to all the creatures, birds, squirrels, etc. that once lived in the beech tree that became the plane? I would just use hide glue and forget about the issue! :lol:

I suppose, thinking about it, being vegan is rather like those who say they exclusively use hand planes and never sandpaper. More of an ideal than a practical achievement, even if they fool themselves into thinking they have managed it!

Mike.

 

[Trafalgar]

I believe warren's view is that the surface is better off of a cap iron equipped plane, and perhaps he feels it's necessary.

My view is that I don't care what you do as long as I don't see hook marks from sandpaper.

My preference not to sand is my preference, not a rule for anyone else. I scrape anything that I can't plane, though it's uncommon on a flat surface. Efficiency is the issue that I am fascinated with, as in why would a double iron eliminate single iron planes. In a time when people were scraping to get by, I have to assume it's economic necessity. I'm interested in how that makes me get something done faster, especially in the once or twice a year I have to build something that resembles furniture or cabinets.

I doubt many other people do that (or care). Either of those. I would assume most people scrape and sand (or let's be honest, most people just sand when the group is opened to include people not particularly interested in hand tools).

Let me pose a scenario that would be interesting to an intermediate woodworker:
* you build a case
* you wrap the case in mouldings that you've cut, carefully keeping crisp lines - to hide the joints
* you've planed the case surfaces before assembly, but now you have to finish them
* the wood is cherry (or soft maple or something else that may not scrape optimally)
* you inevitably come up with some spots where you've touched the case with hide glue on a finger tip by accident, etc, and the mouldings you couldn't plane to fitness because the wood quality was lacking. Or perhaps you have a joint where some glue crept out after attaching a base or a top.

What do you do?

You can certainly sand all of it, but it does take quite a bit of time to sand all of that.

It's something you can figure out and learn with some sweat equity, but I don't see running a progression of sandpaper over everything as having very good time economy, and it doubles the amount of shellac you'll use to get the piece sealed. Not that the price matters, but it's another time specific thing.

(I would scrape all of the areas that are lacking from planing, and if there is a noticeable difference in the surface, use the top side of the scraper that is left polished and without a burr to brighten the surface with light pressure, and not do anything to the already planed surfaces). It would be a minute or two and that's it.

But more important than that, I'd have decided what the style of the moulding would be, whether or not I need to build planes to complete it, what the proportions of the case are, how I'd attach (and hide the attachment) the case together and what the front trim and back would be.

Aside from the practical bits and pieces about finishing the case quickly without inundating yourself by sanding a progression of papers over the whole thing, what about the rest. How often is that stuff discussed? I can't say much. If i have a design question that I can't solve via books, I inevitably have to call George.

(you've done a poor job assuming that I've ever suggested that it's a necessity for everyone else to plane and forgo scrapers and sand paper. that's warren's view and not mine. I think the plane does a better job, of course, but it doesn't matter much if the whole piece is ugly to begin with)

I think the greats would simply tell you it takes almost as long, and sometimes longer, to prep a surface to standard and finish a piece (admittedly their very high standard) than it might have taken to build the entire thing in the first place. Perhaps you're insinuating the notion of speed at a step in the process where all the best absolutely precluded it. This is my takeaway from any decent book I've ever read on the craft. Maybe a review of available literature, and a more careful and wider selection of sources would clear up misconceptions and clarify a philosophy and approach.

Once a piece is constructed the work is only roughly about half completed.