Best plane for a woman.

[D_W]

And the simple answer is:
* No need for anything other than a normal stanley or record bevel down plane, but
* if you're going to send someone out bouncing through tearout with a bevel down plane, forget it ( so teach them to set the cap when you teach them to use it).

Generally, people who think answers are all one-liners (or can't involve any supplemental information) probably aren't going to have a good time doing planing beyond following paint by number instructions.

On the side, I think a larger plane is probably a better idea for beginner women or men or anyone, especially if getting a plane on the end of a board without tipping it around is important.

If one thinks most of them will quit soon, then a bevel up plane is fine. A little early to tell in an intro course who that is (aside from the likelihood being that it's most of the class).

 

[JimB]

To a great extent, woodwork has always been about the woodworker fitting himself/herself to the tools. I remember my first woodwork lessons at school (over sixty years ago) with a class of various sizes, weights and strengths. We still had to all to get used to a wooden jack plane, standard saws, chisels etc. And did they feel clumsy at first!
That aside, someone with small hands might find the early Record No 4 more comfortable to hold than later ones. On the other hand I know a fine cabinet maker who always makes new handles for planes as his hands are too large for the standard sizes.
Men or women, we all need a sharp, well set plane. Anything else creates unnecessary hard work and is dispiriting especially to a learner.

 

[ED65]

I have been fiddling around with planes for about forty years so the foregoing could be seen as "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs!"

With respect Chris, I have to say something. Gran can still learn a few things, q.v. two-part adjusters.

And so that you're not feeling too picked on, you're probably aware of how fond Paul Sellers is of saying how much experience he has. And yet many amateurs here can plane a better surface on difficult wood precisely because he doesn't use the cap iron to full effect!

 

[ED65]

My reaction to this is much the same as D_W's. If kids can use standard bench planes, and when set up correctly/suitably they don't offer too much resistance for them (on suitably non-gnarly wood for a beginner needless to say), then the answer seems just as obvious to me, as far as standard two-handed planing goes.

Wide open mouth (frog set back the full way), cap iron set close enough but not too close (under 0.5mm, over a hairsbreadth), very sharp iron, bench low enough that the user has to lean forward at the waist somewhat and bingo, plane sailing. Pardon the pun.

 

[Mr T]

With respect Chris, I have to say something. Gran can still learn a few things, q.v. two-part adjusters.

And so that you're not feeling too picked on, you're probably aware of how fond Paul Sellers is of saying how much experience he has. And yet many amateurs here can plane a better surface on difficult wood precisely because he doesn't use the cap iron to full effect!

I still maintain that the two part yoke is inferior to the cast yoke.

I try not to watch St Pauls videos.

My reaction to this is much the same as D_W's. If kids can use standard bench planes, and when set up correctly/suitably they don't offer too much resistance for them (on suitably non-gnarly wood for a beginner needless to say), then the answer seems just as obvious to me, as far as standard two-handed planing goes.

Wide open mouth (frog set back the full way), cap iron set close enough but not too close (under 0.5mm, over a hairsbreadth), very sharp iron, bench low enough that the user has to lean forward at the waist somewhat and bingo, plane sailing. Pardon the pun.

I still don't think the actual plane set up is relevant here. I set up each of the planes (similar to the way you netion above) and got a silky smooth surface on the poplar we were planing. When the ladies tried it the surface was uneven, not tear out just cutting unevenly along the edge. Bench height may be a factor, but we did attempt to adjust this with duck boards. So I think it's a technique problem related to strength and weight considerations.

Chris

 

[D_W]

Certainly some of it is experience. Personally, I think every single (or nearly every) person who is just starting will find one of the bevel up planes better for instant success (especially of the "plane an already flat board" or plane something less wide than the iron).

Adjustment and subtle things like camber are problematic in the longer term, but perhaps in pounding the ground with my gimmick- which really isn't my gimmick, just one I'm pleased to have figured out in a vacuum - I'm thinking too far down the road for beginners.

I still can't get the person who taught me woodworking 13 years ago to believe that the learning curve is relatively short (needless to say, he's a fan of machines more than hand tools, and doesn't believe limited hand tool use allows for building of skills with hand tools).

At any rate, I admire your work - don't want to let that get past - I'm fascinated with making and using planes, but do not contend to be any maker of note in terms of anything else. And I recognize that just about everything popular these days (that people will pay for) is either bent or sanded or both. I have a personal goal to recreate 18th century work at some point, so I'm out of touch.

 

[D_W]

I try not to watch St Pauls videos.

Chris

I agree with you there. It's interesting that there seems to be quite a bit of tension among instructors in England, all the way down to comments about sharpening methods.

 

[Tasky]

Wide open mouth (frog set back the full way)

Can I just ask - Is that as far back as it will unscrew, or just as far back as the cutting iron will allow, sort of flush with the sloping back of the mouth?

And yet many amateurs here can plane a better surface on difficult wood precisely because he doesn't use the cap iron to full effect!

What is Sellers not doing, in this instance?
ISTR he says he sets his cap about 2mm from the edge?

I still maintain that the two part yoke is inferior to the cast yoke.

What's your thinking behind this, Chris?
I did wonder about this the other day, as my 4½ two-parter seems a little loose in its cap iron slot, while my 4 has a solid cast tab and the iron assembly doesn't rattle so much.... both cases before installing the lever cap, of course.

So I think it's a technique problem related to strength and weight considerations.

With respect, I think it's nothing to do with weight or strength... Purely technique and body mechanics (yes, this stuff again, sorry. No microtensions, I promise!).

My reasoning is that we have many female students at the boxing and martial arts classes. Even those tiny fighters can be shown (in a matter of minutes) how to apply enough leverage to push over 1400lbs of weight - Far more than it takes to move a handplane...
We have this exercise where all the other students lock themselves together in this sort-of rugby scrum kind of assembly. It's solid as you like and you can even walk across them... and yet a scrawny girl of just 4' 10" can still deliver the leverage to push them all over. We do it slow first and then speed it up to almost full punching speed - It works by simply taking up a stance and just bending the lead leg to transfer your bodyweight through to and along your extended arm.

Now obviously there's some basic physics involved and it's just a training trick/party piece, but it demonstrates how power delivery works and develops the techniques for doing so at speed. Translated, it's what makes the Jab such a solid hit in boxing.

When you're handplaning, the body position is basically much the same. Even the hand positions are similar, you just start with them closer to your body than in a boxing stance. The weight transfer works the same way as well, with the main requirements being that the feet must support the hands (ie good foot placement), and the line of your force must align with the body... meaning that you can only be so high or so low before your body is pushing out of alignment. In the latter case this comes down to your opponent's head height, or in woodworking that'd be the bench height.
The rest is good technique to keep things aligned and working as they should.

This is the very difficulty I've had in handplaning up my own bench components, as I knew from the start I would be very low down for such work... I just didn't have experience with the forces and the techniques behind it.

But while I fully acknowledge that fighting and woodworking are very different activities, the human body doing them is the same and the mechanics behind it work the same too. I may not (yet) know much about working wood, but I have a reasonable understanding of the body that works it.

 

[Ttrees]

Wide open mouth (frog set back the full way)

Can I just ask - Is that as far back as it will unscrew, or just as far back as the cutting iron will allow, sort of flush with the sloping back of the mouth?

And yet many amateurs here can plane a better surface on difficult wood precisely because he doesn't use the cap iron to full effect!

What is Sellers not doing, in this instance?
ISTR he says he sets his cap about 2mm from the edge?

The 45 degree frog should be flush with the 45 deg casting on the plane body.
Older planes don't have that adjuster screw BTW
And as far as I know...Paul has not made it known yet if he uses the cap iron, or will demonstrate
it in future.
He certainly has enough planes to designate one as a proper smoother.

But while I fully acknowledge that fighting and woodworking are very different activities, the human body doing them is the same and the mechanics behind it work the same too. I may not (yet) know much about working wood, but I have a reasonable understanding of the body that works it.

It sounds to me like your doing both fighting and planing, just like Sir Paul shows

 

[D_W]

The mechanics of planing are a lot like throwing a bounce pass in basketball. Thrust with the legs and extend with the arms at the end of the stroke. Same as if you imagine you're going to get in a fight with someone and need to push them moderately hard to make them aware that you're not going to be walked over.

Some modern instruction excludes this (the extension especially), but it's just part of efficient technique. The part that automatically comes with practice is being able to get the plane to start the cut full depth and finish it full depth, and have it go where you want without tipping, etc. The bevel up planes have the ergonomics of a frying pan. That flat footed feeling is probably a wonderful asset for someone who hasn't learned to push a plane without tipping it around front to back or side to side.

 

[D_W]

The 45 degree frog should be flush with the 45 deg casting on the plane body.
Older planes don't have that adjuster screw BTW
And as far as I know...Paul has not made it known yet if he uses the cap iron, or will demonstrate
it in future.
He certainly has enough planes to designate one as a proper smoother.

Paul has stated in his blog something to the effect of the cap iron only being there to hold the blade in place. He's also made comments about the plane not having issue preventing tearout set as such (2mm or whatever). There's a whole host of issues with that, not the least of which is that the plane is much more solid and less chatter prone with the cap set reasonably close (even if it is only just having a little bit of effect).

Paul is quick on the white pine in his videos, and no doubt he can cut a quick mortise and pine set of dovetails, but watching him demonstrate dimensioning a stick is painful. I don't think the average viewer is much beyond new, but that is his market and that's what he needs to cater to. Getting too technical and getting away from the touchy feely message he likes to gimmick about "lifestyle" would probably cost him in terms of revenue. It *is* a business, not an effort to make the next cartouche award winner (or be one himself).

While the work that these guys (on this list) is FAR above anything that Paul instructs, I'll bet their balance sheet and income statement isn't as strong as Paul's. or Rob Cosman's.
http://new.sapfm.org/cartouche.php

 

[MikeG.]

.......My reasoning is that we have many female students at the boxing and martial arts classes. Even those tiny fighters can be shown (in a matter of minutes) how to apply enough leverage to push over 1400lbs of weight - Far more than it takes to move a handplane.........

You don't think there is some self-selection about those participating in martial arts classes? That these might be more physically capable than the average, perhaps?

It's a different sort of strength requirement for planing, too. Most men probably take for granted having a reasonable grip and strong wrists......but how many of us have wives/ other halves who ask us to undo the lid on a jam jar? Being able to hold a plane in a stable position throughout the stroke is easy if (plucking figures out of the air) it takes 30% of your wrist & grip strength to do it, but I wonder how easy it would be if you needed, say 90% of your maximum.

 

[Bodgers]

I didn't dare open this thread, expecting all out war.

Pleasantly surprised it's relatively civil.

Congratulations all - keep it up

 

[MikeG.]

........While the work that these guys (on this list) is FAR above anything that Paul instructs, I'll bet their balance sheet and income statement isn't as strong as Paul's. or Rob Cosman's.
http://new.sapfm.org/cartouche.php

You're comparing apples and pears. Those on the list make a living from making and selling furniture. Sellers and Cosman don't.

Professional sportsmen, singers, actors, dancers and so on often (if not usually) have coaches who never performed anywhere near the level of the people they coach, because teaching and performing are two entirely different skills. That works the other way around, too. Some of the very best sportsmen, singers, actors etc have tried and failed as coaches. Just because you can "do", doesn't mean you can teach.

 

[D_W]

.......My reasoning is that we have many female students at the boxing and martial arts classes. Even those tiny fighters can be shown (in a matter of minutes) how to apply enough leverage to push over 1400lbs of weight - Far more than it takes to move a handplane.........

You don't think there is some self-selection about those participating in martial arts classes? That these might be more physically capable than the average, perhaps?

It's a different sort of strength requirement for planing, too. Most men probably take for granted having a reasonable grip and strong wrists......but how many of us have wives/ other halves who ask us to undo the lid on a jam jar? Being able to hold a plane in a stable position throughout the stroke is easy if (plucking figures out of the air) it takes 30% of your wrist & grip strength to do it, but I wonder how easy it would be if you needed, say 90% of your maximum.

it should take very little grip (even 30% constant induces arthritis-like feelings). Same with chisels - we don't white-fist anything. It should be subtle. Sawing, etc, all of it, the same. Alignment is what we're doing. Gripping or manipulating is problematic.

Put a pen in your hand, as if you're gripping a hammer handle. Lay your hand on top of a desk or table and hold the pencil vertically, then relax your wrist and note the angle of the pencil. It'll be somewhere around 65 degrees from the surface instead of 90. As soon as wrist manipulation enters the equation, planing won't last long (try planing on a low bench with a lee valley BU plane).

The difference between the average man and a very slight man or the average man and the average woman should be a matter of wattage. Even handles, etc, aren't a real issue for most. A handle sized to fit an average man (3.5-3.75" across the knuckle) is not problematic for a woman with a hand a half inch smaller. My hands (3.5" across) were fine using a plane I made for a friend who has a span of 4.75" across the knuckles. The plane was awkward at first, but not uncomfortable after a short period of time. too small is instantly uncomfortable with rubbing pinkies, etc, on the tops of planes. I've experimented making planes with handles that have a span exactly the size of my hand (closed handle and open) and in quarter inch increments up to 1/2", which is about ideal for a closed handle. For open, about a quarter inch smaller is ideal.

Anyway, finger pressure or wrist strain are a problem that should not occur. Shoulder and upper arm fatigue are the stopping point, but not for intermittent work.

 

[D_W]

........While the work that these guys (on this list) is FAR above anything that Paul instructs, I'll bet their balance sheet and income statement isn't as strong as Paul's. or Rob Cosman's.
http://new.sapfm.org/cartouche.php

You're comparing apples and pears. Those on the list make a living from making and selling furniture. Sellers and Cosman don't.

Professional sportsmen, singers, actors, dancers and so on often (if not usually) have coaches who never performed anywhere near the level of the people they coach, because teaching and performing are two entirely different skills. That works the other way around, too. Some of the very best sportsmen, singers, actors etc have tried and failed as coaches. Just because you can "do", doesn't mean you can teach.

Cosman tried and couldn't. Sellers doesn't. All or almost all of the individuals on the cartouche list are teachers, with the glaring exception (without looking further) being Mack Headley, but I'd imagine even Mack does some instruction (less so than the others because he drew a museum salary).

The difference between NBSS, Phil Lowe, etc, is their target market. They are teaching fine work, not "lifestyle woodworking".

The real difference between these guys and paul is that paul trained as a joiner (not a cabinetmaker) and the background of the folks on the list above is finer work. There may be a similar list for bricklayers, etc, around the united states, but SAPFM is period furniture. I can't imagine that topic drawing in beginners in volume - it's too complicated and not much in the gimmick of "this is something accessible to everyone".

 

[MikeG.]

....... Alignment is what we're doing. Gripping or manipulating is problematic.......

It's more than that. Holding alignment is what we are doing. You aren't aware of this requiring any strength, but that is because you may be somewhat stronger than the women that were the subject of the opening post. I absolutely agree that we don't tense up ("white knuckle", in your words). What I am looking for is a reason why beginner women are, according to the OP, unable to plane, whereas beginner men make much more progress. Never minding the plane, can you think of any physiological explanation for the observation, other than strength (which you've dismissed)?

 

[Ttrees]

What I am looking for is a reason why beginner women are, according to the OP, unable to plane, whereas beginner men make much more progress.

They have nicer fingernails than mine

 

[Tasky]

The 45 degree frog should be flush with the 45 deg casting on the plane body.

Ah, gotcha.

Older planes don't have that adjuster screw BTW

You mean pre-Bailey infil types, or the proper wooden ones?
TBH, I can understand why the frog might need to advance and close off the mouth, but why would it go so far back from it? Dun't that bend the blade?

And as far as I know...Paul has not made it known yet if he uses the cap iron, or will demonstrate it in future.

What exactly are people meaning when they say "using the cap iron"?
Near as I can see, he puts it on, adjusts it to distance and goes with it.

He does also mention that the term 'chip breaker' is erroneous, because it doesn't break anything and is a term carried over from machines that do break chips... He suggests that a cap iron is mainly there to tension the cutting iron and help stop blade chatter, pointing out that many planes old and new do the same thing at the same angles without having a cap iron.... which makes sense to me, at least.

He certainly has enough planes to designate one as a proper smoother.

Enough?
Naw, he's only got maybe 50 of them... But then he's not a REAL woodworker, like some of them in YouTube Land!! :lol:
Cue another rant about people who collect tools and don't use them....

It sounds to me like your doing both fighting and planing, just like Sir Paul shows

Not at the same time, though.
He doesn't really look to be fighting the plane either, though, which is what got me wondering if I had it right.

The mechanics of planing are a lot like throwing a bounce pass in basketball.

But without pushing down toward the ground?

Paul is quick on the white pine in his videos, and no doubt he can cut a quick mortise and pine set of dovetails, but watching him demonstrate dimensioning a stick is painful.

To me, he looks about the same doing Sapele and Oak too...

Getting too technical and getting away from the touchy feely message he likes to gimmick about "lifestyle" would probably cost him in terms of revenue. It *is* a business, not an effort to make the next cartouche award winner (or be one himself).

His YouTube, his touchy-feely blog and half his Masterclasses are free, though. I don't believe his YouTubes are even monetised.
I think that, if he were a full-time business in this respect, then between the training courses and whatever actual work he does making things for sale (rocking chairs, apparently), he'd have a load of own-brand kit to flog, a-la Cosman... but without the ridiculous price tag.

You don't think there is some self-selection about those participating in martial arts classes? That these might be more physically capable than the average, perhaps?

What, a 4' 10" woman stepping up against a 16st guy nearly 6'?
How about Big Dave, standing 5' 6" and who came to us carrying 24st of beer gut?
Nope, not at all.
We have all sorts, some of whom are very fit practitioners of previous martial arts or sports, while others never even took their PE kit with them to school.

The fun part is in seeing what different people find works best for them.
For example, I'm a tall, skinny thing with long arms, so I'll keep you at distance and drop you with sniper-precision strikes to your key targets... and bevcause I smoke heavily, I'll do this very quickly so I don't get out of breath!!
My wife, on the other hand, is one of those short-pineappled Fat Bottomed Girls (who make the rocking world go round) and will use all her weight to get in close and hammer you hard in the solar plexus, ribs or even kidneys.

but how many of us have wives/ other halves who ask us to undo the lid on a jam jar?

While mine does this, she's also able to shut a bathroom tap far tighter than I myself can undo it.

I wonder how easy it would be if you needed, say 90% of your maximum.

As long as my body is aligned, wrist strength shouldn't be a factor... and I say this having broken both wrists several times, yet still being able to go boxing and swordfighting.
While parts of me did ache after all that planing, there was not the slightest hint of a twinge in my wrists, which is something I'm quite experienced in noticing.

A handle sized to fit an average man (3.5-3.75" across the knuckle)

That's the average, is it?
I think I see where one of my problems is... !! :lol:

What I am looking for is a reason why beginner women are, according to the OP, unable to plane, whereas beginner men make much more progress.

Men are taller and more naturally aligned with the typical bench.
Women's natural alignments differ and do not lend themselves so immediately to a male-oriented working setup.... or to throwing a punch, which you see in the stereotypical 'Chick Punch' that looks more like a whipping-with-the-arm motion. However, it takes only a bit of instruction and corrected practice to get the right alignment.
But in the same way, women's natural alignment does make them better beginners at rifle marksmanship, while there's a rough equality with both newbies of both genders in shotgunning and archery. Newbie swordfighters can go either way, while newbie women can be scarily gifted with staff weapons!
All this relies more on joints and body alignment than outright strength.

 

[Ttrees]

Older planes don't have that adjuster screw BTW

YOU mean pre-Bailey infil types, or the proper wooden ones?

I meant standard older Leonard Bailey designs similar to yours.

And as far as I know...Paul has not made it known yet if he uses the cap iron, or will demonstrate it in future.

What exactly are people meaning when they say "using the cap iron"?
Near as I can see, he puts it on, adjusts it to distance and goes with it.

He does also mention that the term 'chip breaker' is erroneous, because it doesn't break anything and is a term carried over from machines that do break chips... He suggests that a cap iron is mainly there to tension the cutting iron and help stop blade chatter, pointing out that many planes old and new do the same thing at the same angles without having a cap iron.... which makes sense to me, at least. [/quote]

YOU will have to watch or read David W's (Weaver's) efforts to make it widely known the influence of the cap iron/or chipbreaker depending on what you like to call it.

It sounds to me like your doing both fighting and planing, just like Sir Paul shows

Not at the same time, though.
He doesn't really look to be fighting the plane either, though, which is what got me wondering if I had it right. [/quote]

YOU must have missed or not seen/listened to what he says then, on his youtube channel....
Maybe you put the dinner on when he mentions and demonstrates "fighting" only a few videos back.

(disclaimer)
Capitals ore not intended to be shouting, just trying to be a bit clearer with the quotes.

Tom