Bailey style planes, thin irons and cap-irons.

[swagman]

I am sure the following with create much further discussion.

Within Baileys 1867 patent on using a thinner plane iron, he clearly describes the role of the cap iron as a means to eliminate chatter. I have heard it said that prior too 1867, Bailey was well aware of the benefits of the cap iron to control tear out. The evidence best explained by the popularity of double iron planes during that time period.

Is it likely that the benefits of controlling tear through the use of a closely set cap iron was not even established by 1867.

Stewie;

 

[Jacob]

We know Bailey's stated motivation for using thinner plane irons, but mere "economy" isn't an advantage of his design and it's success - quite the opposite; it was an expensive plane.
He wanted to patent a device for making thin blades viable - we can speculate and infer that he didn't spell out all the advantages in his patent application, perhaps just to keep it simple and also put the competition off the scent.

 

[D_W]

I am sure the following with create much further discussion.

Within Baileys 1867 patent on using a thinner plane iron, he clearly describes the role of the cap iron as a means to eliminate chatter. I have heard it said that prior too 1867, Bailey was well aware of the benefits of the cap iron to control tear out. The evidence best explained by the popularity of double iron planes during that time period.

Is it likely that the benefits of controlling tear through the use of a closely set cap iron was not even established by 1867.

Stewie;

Warren Mickley can provide plenty of strings of text published long before that say things like "it's well known that double irons work contrary grain" or something to that effect.

I remember quoting a string of text to warren about an iron that was set up to be double beveled (back beveled) and even that quote (which was before 1867) described the effect of a double iron being to eliminate tearout. The advertisement was espousing the benefit of an extra thick iron with a back bevel. It never caught on (though it's popular now with amateurs). Probably because it was solving a problem that didn't exist with skilled users.

 

[bridger]

I can't quote sources, but my memory has the dominance of the double iron as pretty well set around 1700

 

[Corneel]

1800 Bridger! In 1700 the capiron probably wasn't invented yet. (hammer)

To quote a vintage expert: Nicholson in Mechanics companion, 1842:

"To prevent the iron from tearing the wood to cross grained stuff, a cover is used with a reversed basil [...] The distance between the cutting edge of the iron and the edge of the cover, depends alltogether on the nature of the stuff. If the stuff is free, the edge of the cover may be set at a considerable distance, because the difficulty of pushing the plane forward becomes greater, as the edge of the cover is nearer the edge of the iron, and the contrary when more remote."

This short chapter proves a few points.

- In 1842 the function of the capiron to prevent tearout was well known.
- Various wood conditions dictate the position of the cap iron.
- They knew were to set the capiron, very close to the edge, to make it effective. They did feel the accompanying increase of pushing resistance.

Another writer with a similar text from the same period is Holzappfl.

So, with this effect being well known and being published allready, it was impossible to be patented. So you won't find it mentioned in any of these patents.

Patent writing is a peculiar science. And there are plenty patents with all kinds of nonsence.

 

[swagman]

1800 Bridger! In 1700 the capiron probably wasn't invented yet. (hammer)

To quote a vintage expert: Nicholson in Mechanics companion, 1842:

"To prevent the iron from tearing the wood to cross grained stuff, a cover is used with a reversed basil [...] The distance between the cutting edge of the iron and the edge of the cover, depends alltogether on the nature of the stuff. If the stuff is free, the edge of the cover may be set at a considerable distance, because the difficulty of pushing the plane forward becomes greater, as the edge of the cover is nearer the edge of the iron, and the contrary when more remote."

This short chapter proves a few points.

- In 1842 the function of the capiron to prevent tearout was well known.
- Various wood conditions dictate the position of the cap iron.
- They knew were to set the capiron, very close to the edge, to make it effective. They did feel the accompanying increase of pushing resistance.

Another writer with a similar text from the same period is Holzappfl.

So, with this effect being well known and being published allready, it was impossible to be patented. So you won't find it mentioned in any of these patents.

Patent writing is a peculiar science. And there are plenty patents with all kinds of nonsence.

Thanks Kees. Thats the evidence I was after.

regards Stewie;

 

[AndyT]

Just to save a little time, and maybe swerve this long rambling thread away from going down another rabbit hole, new readers might like to look back at this thread https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/goldenberg-smoother-t82202.html which looked at
- alternative designs of double irons,
- a rare English survivor from the eighteenth century,
- continuing use of an uncoupled pair of irons in France, and
- the earliest reference to double irons in print, in the Pennsylvania Chronicle in 1767.

 

[swagman]

Hi Andy. re - the earliest reference to double irons in print, in the Pennsylvania Chronicle in 1767.

http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.php? ... t_thread=1

regards Stewie;

 

[Jacob]

What about the lever cap is that Bailey's own or was that earlier?
It seems to me that a viable thin blade and lever cap are his principle innovations.

 

[swagman]

What about the lever cap is that Bailey's own or was that earlier?
It seems to me that a viable thin blade and lever cap are his principle innovations.

Hi Jacob.

The following is Baileys patent for the lever cap.
http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _21311.htm (1858)

The following patent looks to be an improvement on Baileys original lever cap design. (1933)
http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... 918750.htm

Stewie;

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Not sure Bailey can claim the viable thin blade; I can't find the reference now, but I recall Richard Arnold posting about a plane of smoothing dimensions found in an archaeological dig in London, and dated to the mid 17th century. That had an iron of about comparable thickness to a modern Bailey. For some reason, the name 'Copley' comes to mind, but a search on 'Copley plane' brought nothing up on the forum search engine.

We really need Richard Arnold to chip in here, but I think there's evidence that 17th and early 18th century plane irons were thin compared to the later (mostly laminated) examples we're familiar with from such sources as Benjamin Seaton's tools.

 

[Jacob]

Not sure Bailey can claim the viable thin blade,,,,,.

He didn't actually patent it (I don't suppose he could) but the main points of his design are to make a thin blade viable (thin blades saving on sharpening time) and to make it quick and easy to remove/replace/adjust (save on sharpening time again, plus easy adjustment). This is whether he said so or not! Basically it's dead obvious to anyone who has used a variety of planes: non of them come anywhere near the Bailey design for sheer practical convenience and efficacy.
Thick blades and clumsy Norris adjusters are just pointless retro fashions.

 

[AndyT]

I can't find the reference now, but I recall Richard Arnold posting about a plane of smoothing dimensions found in an archaeological dig in London, and dated to the mid 17th century. That had an iron of about comparable thickness to a modern Bailey. For some reason, the name 'Copley' comes to mind, but a search on 'Copley plane' brought nothing up on the forum search engine.

<ahem> From the previous page... <ahem>

Just to save a little time, and maybe swerve this long rambling thread away from going down another rabbit hole, new readers might like to look back at this thread goldenberg-smoother-t82202.html which looked at
- alternative designs of double irons,
- a rare English survivor from the eighteenth century,
- continuing use of an uncoupled pair of irons in France, and
- the earliest reference to double irons in print, in the Pennsylvania Chronicle in 1767.

From that thread:

"The article describes a rare C18th smoothing plane, found in excavations at Cutler Street in London and now on display in the Museum of London. It has a double iron, probably made by Hildick, with no screw to join the two parts."

NB mid C18th not C17th - that would be a rare find indeed!

Richard did say that he disagrees with the author's suggestion that the Jennion trade card showed double irons.

The article in question is now available online, here:

http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-t...ker-s-smoothing-plane-from-the-city-of-london

HTH!!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Thanks Andy - and I read that thread too! (though not all the links). Cutler Street, not Copley....

( )

 

[swagman]

I can't find the reference now, but I recall Richard Arnold posting about a plane of smoothing dimensions found in an archaeological dig in London, and dated to the mid 17th century. That had an iron of about comparable thickness to a modern Bailey. For some reason, the name 'Copley' comes to mind, but a search on 'Copley plane' brought nothing up on the forum search engine.

<ahem> From the previous page... <ahem>

Just to save a little time, and maybe swerve this long rambling thread away from going down another rabbit hole, new readers might like to look back at this thread goldenberg-smoother-t82202.html which looked at
- alternative designs of double irons,
- a rare English survivor from the eighteenth century,
- continuing use of an uncoupled pair of irons in France, and
- the earliest reference to double irons in print, in the Pennsylvania Chronicle in 1767.

From that thread:

"The article describes a rare C18th smoothing plane, found in excavations at Cutler Street in London and now on display in the Museum of London. It has a double iron, probably made by Hildick, with no screw to join the two parts."

NB mid C18th not C17th - that would be a rare find indeed!

Richard did say that he disagrees with the author's suggestion that the Jennion trade card showed double irons.

The article in question is now available online, here:

http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-t...ker-s-smoothing-plane-from-the-city-of-london

HTH!!

Hi Andy. Is it likely that Asian countries such as Japan and China were already well versed in the use of double irons, well before their introduction within European countries.

Stewie;

 

[D_W]

I can't find the reference now, but I recall Richard Arnold posting about a plane of smoothing dimensions found in an archaeological dig in London, and dated to the mid 17th century. That had an iron of about comparable thickness to a modern Bailey. For some reason, the name 'Copley' comes to mind, but a search on 'Copley plane' brought nothing up on the forum search engine.

<ahem> From the previous page... <ahem>

Just to save a little time, and maybe swerve this long rambling thread away from going down another rabbit hole, new readers might like to look back at this thread goldenberg-smoother-t82202.html which looked at
- alternative designs of double irons,
- a rare English survivor from the eighteenth century,
- continuing use of an uncoupled pair of irons in France, and
- the earliest reference to double irons in print, in the Pennsylvania Chronicle in 1767.

From that thread:

"The article describes a rare C18th smoothing plane, found in excavations at Cutler Street in London and now on display in the Museum of London. It has a double iron, probably made by Hildick, with no screw to join the two parts."

NB mid C18th not C17th - that would be a rare find indeed!

Richard did say that he disagrees with the author's suggestion that the Jennion trade card showed double irons.

The article in question is now available online, here:

http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-t...ker-s-smoothing-plane-from-the-city-of-london

HTH!!

Hi Andy. Is it likely that Asian countries such as Japan and China were already well versed in the use of double irons, well before their introduction within European countries.

Stewie;

I'd be kind of surprised if it wasn't known off and on for thousands of years. It's something that a scholarly person could think through, the lifting of the chip, or an observant user could chance into.

 

[Corneel]

As long as there is no evidence that'll remain a guess.

If I remember correctly then most Roman planes found had a pretty high bedding angle. The first professional planemakers in the modern western world, the Dutch, were also using higher bedding angles, about 50 degrees and never used a double iron.

 

[Jacob]

What about the lever cap is that Bailey's own or was that earlier?
It seems to me that a viable thin blade and lever cap are his principle innovations.

Hi Jacob.

The following is Baileys patent for the lever cap.
http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _21311.htm (1858)

The following patent looks to be an improvement on Baileys original lever cap design. (1933)
http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... 918750.htm

Stewie;

Interesting. Difficult to read - bits missing and bits of code dropped in.

This is Bailey's single most significant development; lever cap for rapid removal/replacement of blade unit.
Followed eventually by the realisation that, together with an all steel frog (and then plane) plus the cap-iron double bend, this would make viable a thin blade, with the enormous advantage of reduced sharpening time.

 

[AndyT]

Re far eastern use of double irons, as Corneel suggests, let's stick to evidence gathering rather than guesswork as much as we can.

My only reference source which covers Asian tools is Whelan's book, The Wooden Plane.

He notes Japanese use of an unattached, sharpened cap iron 'toward the end of the nineteenth century' (p37).

He also writes that the double iron 'was documented' in England in about 1730, before being advertised in Philadelphia in 1767. We all know the source of the American ad, but does anyone know the earlier documentary evidence he had in mind? Frustratingly, his excellent book has no footnotes!

 

[swagman]

Re far eastern use of double irons, as Corneel suggests, let's stick to evidence gathering rather than guesswork as much as we can.

My only reference source which covers Asian tools is Whelan's book, The Wooden Plane.

He notes Japanese use of an unattached, sharpened cap iron 'toward the end of the nineteenth century' (p37).

He also writes that the double iron 'was documented' in England in about 1730, before being advertised in Philadelphia in 1767. We all know the source of the American ad, but does anyone know the earlier documentary evidence he had in mind? Frustratingly, his excellent book has no footnotes!

Hi Andy. Good advise. It dissapointing John M. Whelan didnt provide a source for his claim. As such it cannot be substantiated.

regards Stewie;