Best plane for a woman.

[David C]

Once I had a lady with wrists like matchsticks, so I dug out my 5 1/4.

I believe this was known as the lad's jack plane.

This worked out very well.

Usually I recommend a N0. 5.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth.

 

[MikeG.]

.........Men are taller and more naturally aligned with the typical bench.........

The OP specifically said that they tried using duck-boards to get over the height thing. So it isn't that.

The men and women were given the same teaching, and the women often outperformed the men on the rest of the course....other than with a plane. I think we need something other than "natural alignment" as an explanation, given that this has been accounted for. Some people have dismissed the (undeniable) difference in strength as a factor, but haven't yet provided me enough reason to agree with them.

 

[D_W]

We're talking about something that is like a simplified multivariate analysis. We can say "women", that's probably a factor. "strength", certainly that's a factor, but it isn't a descriptor in its entirety. I think there must be other characteristics more common in women that would create this difference (and some of the conclusion in the first place could be due to small sample or confirmation bias - as in, are we forgetting about the thinly built or poorly coordinated men who can't get it together?).

Anyway, sure strength has something to do with it, but i don't think someone with half of my strength would have trouble planing. They'd have trouble planing as much as fast, though.

It is something else, because the amount strength needed to keep the toe of a plane flat on wood is not that great. The inability to coordinate the move in the first place, or the lack of sense (observing and understanding what needs to occur) could be a factor, and whether or not the characteristics behind that are correlated to men more than women, I don't know.

My father coached baseball (here in the states, that kind of thing is popular), and then he took a break and lost the position. When he wanted to come back, he had to coach girls softball instead (another popular school sport). He would always remark about the inability of most of the girls to "generate power", which in baseball is coordinating leg drive, hip turn and a release. Of course, that's not universal - there were some girls who could hit a softball with serious authority. His contention, though, was that almost all of the girls "wave the bat", which means they don't do much other than a light twist at the waist and use their arms.

Maybe it's hormonal (and you might think I'm being stupid saying that, but hormones affect how we think and act and what gives us satisfaction) - I wouldn't be surprised if you could tie hormone levels in men to these types of coordinated physical moves. Again, multivariate type of thing, where there are multiple factors and this is just one.

 

[Ttrees]

Apart from my off topic fingernail comment which was actually a psoriasis joke :roll:
I really do think this one method would teach anyone to plane easily and faster than all methods
combined.
That, and maybe a constant recording of get behind the plane on repeat in the workshop.

This method requires a flat bench and a dark crayon.
A fire door makes a quick planing and assembly bench.
Cover the reference part of your bench with dark crayon, black is best,
and rub your board for a second on the bench, to reveal the high spots which will have witness marks.
Once you do that for a few minutes you will have the right geometry/muscle memory to plane
after that.
Good luck

 

[MikeG.]

Apart from my off topic fingernail comment which was actually a psoriasis joke :roll:
I really do think this one method would teach anyone to plane easily and faster than all methods
combined.
That, and maybe a constant recording of get behind the plane on repeat in the workshop.

This method requires a flat bench and a dark crayon.
A fire door makes a quick planing and assembly bench.
Cover the reference part of your bench with dark crayon, black is best,
and rub your board for a second on the bench, to reveal the high spots which will have witness marks.
Once you do that for a few minutes you will have the right geometry/muscle memory to plane
after that.

Sheesh. What a way to complicate something profoundly simple. What a way to put off newcomers.

Good luck

Yeah, they'd need it.

 

[Bodgers]

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.

http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/tes ... _935.shtml

 

[D_W]

All this relies more on joints and body alignment than outright strength.

Two things - if paul registers folks for several hundred dollars per class, why would he need to sell gear? I can't imagine screwing around with tshirts would be as profitable, and it would completely ruin his gimmick which is "I'm not selling you anything, buy my video subscription and pay to come to my classes...but that doesn't count as selling you something. Look, I'm not "beholden" to tool companies! Buy my videos".

He's not a real woodworker like the guys all over youtube....like him....what? He's on youtube for one reason. It's free exposure to sell a recurring subscription on his website. If it wasn't, I doubt he'd do it. I have to imagine that it has driven more traffic to his site than anything else. If he's really selling advertisements to his site on ebay (loose use of the word sell), it would be senseless to turn on adsense and make about a dollar for every 3000 viewers or so. It would irritate more people than that and cost him traffic to his site.

re: the hand size, the hand sizes that I've made for other folks have been mostly 3.5 to 3.75, some up to 4. Mine are just over 3 1/2 (and I consider my hands small). The one oddball has been the guy who got me into woodworking, 4.75 across the knuckles. It caused his plane to look a bit clownish when I made it, but so be it.

re: who to compare paul to? Makers like Mack Headley, George Wilson, etc. You won't find those guys doing a lot of youtube, though Mack is now retired from CW (I think) and may give classes. I think George (who I talk to frequently) would probably like a second lifetime or maybe five more to build all of the things he'd like to build. I doubt there's much to be made being a maker of that caliber. George's shop rate in retirement is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 bucks an hour.

(edit: I did look up Mack's page to see if he's teaching - no mention of it, but you can see furniture from his shop there. I did find him listed as giving some classes at this place: http://www.wwotsv.com/wwotsv_webpage_003.htm

That kind of work is not so accessible by a beginner, but I doubt they're looking for a beginner. The course cost is about the same as Sellers' course costs, and i don't think they sell online videos. I don't think they'd get many views on youtube, either, but I know which classes I'd rather go to.

I've never known George to do anything other than take apprentices )

 

[Ttrees]

Sheesh. What a way to complicate something profoundly simple. What a way to put off newcomers.

Good luck

Yeah, they'd need it.

You seem to think a flat surface is a bad thing Mike
Profoundly simple, yet the thread is still going strong!
Have you got anything to add, like some advice on your techniques? ...
Cause all I'm hearing is rock throwing at the moment, and a disregard for the cap iron
previously

Tom

 

[John15]

''Sheesh. What a way to complicate something profoundly simple. What a way to put off newcomers.''

I'm not sure about putting newcomers off, some of the nonsense being spouted here is putting me off.

John

 

[MikeG.]

Winding sticks and your eyes, Tom. This thread, though, isn't about what to remove, or how to set the plane to remove it. It is about the Best Plane for a Woman (the clue is in the title). As we've proved for the last 12 hours, it is perfectly possible to have an adult and reasoned conversation AND stick to the topic. The topic here doesn't include anything at all about setting the plane, but only about plane choice, and any reason that choice may be different for a woman than a man. It really isn't complicated.

 

[Ttrees]

How can anyone know what plane they "like" if they don't know how to plane in the first place?
I was giving my opinion on the best way to get used to planing, so one could make a decision later
Winding sticks aren't gonna help someone get a feel for a plane and use the thing right for the "first time" within 10 minutes
You have to learn how to push a plane first
Then you can choose the accuracy you want to aim for after that

Tom

 

[MikeG.]

How can anyone know what plane they "like" if they don't know how to plane in the first place?
I was giving my opinion on the best way to get used to planing, so one could make a decision later
Winding sticks aren't gonna help someone get a feel for a plane and use the thing right for the "first time" within 10 minutes
You have to learn how to push a plane first
Then you can choose the accuracy you want to aim for after that

Tom

Go and read the opening post again Tom. No one was asking students to make a choice about which plane they liked.

Men and woman beginners were given the same teaching, and despite the women having a higher over-all attainment on the course than men, they couldn't plane, but the men could.

Now, your points may well be perfectly fair enough in a discussion about planing in general, but they are completely off-topic in this discussion, which is about what it is that made planing for the women in that particular class so difficult. If you have anything to say on that subject, rather than your little hobby horse, it would be good to hear it.

And no, you weren't giving "giving an opinion on the best way to get used to planing"........you were talking about flattening a board. These are not the same thing. Being as you had just said that people should use a reference surface and a marker pen, it's a bit ironic that you should then say: "Winding sticks aren't gonna help someone get a feel for a plane and use the thing right for the "first time" within 10 minutes. You have to learn how to push a plane first "

 

[Mr T]

This thread has moved faster than I can keep up, just got back from the workshop and it's about two pages longer . Way back Tasky asked why I don't like two part adjuster yokes. It's because I find that the two parts can drift apart making adjustment difficult. ED65 PM'ed me a fix for this a while ago(I can't find my PM's under this new system!). But I would prefer not to have the issue so favour the cast yokes.
Tasky also said that it's not an issue of strength and body weight rather technique citing martial arts technique. I would agree to some extent but for beginners who have yet to develop technique men can use strength and body weight to compensate but women may not have this option. I spent some time studying the ladies technique ( a bit like a golf pro studying gold swing) and it seemed to be a problem of just not being able to keep the sole flat on the wood. With good technique once the shaving is started there should not be any need to press down, the action of the shaving pulls the sole down onto the wood. The students had difficulty getting that starting shaving or lost it part way through the cut.

D_W commented about tension between instructors in the UK. For my part I have great respect for the likes of Peter Sefton and David Charlesworth and Paul Sellars has certainly helped many newcomers on the woodworking journey. With Paul though I just cannot resist taking the Mick from his holier than thou Life style Woodworker thing.

Chris

 

[NickN]

D_W commented about tension between instructors in the UK. For my part I have great respect for the likes of Peter Sefton and David Charlesworth and Paul Sellers has certainly helped many newcomers on the woodworking journey. With Paul though I just cannot resist taking the Mick from his holier than thou Life style Woodworker thing.

I certainly wouldn't be enjoying my relatively new hobby and the skills I'm learning if it weren't for Mr Sellers - it was his outdoor workbench build in a plain old garden using improvised equipment and cheap tools that was the lightbulb moment for me. The moment I realised that it wasn't necessary to have a shop stuffed full of expensive machinery, or be able to produce perfect joints immediately. In other words, woodworking was actually accessible for mere peasants such as myself.
But I agree about the blog posts, some of them are rather amusing and some completely baffle me.

My thoughts on the original question though are that I'm pretty sure many women can use the exact same planes as any man, and indeed probably ought to try if possible, as there's a reason certain planes are used in certain scenarios. As Tasky said though, what is probably different is the technique needed to achieve a good result with that tool - and I think there's been a few good theories about ways that could work effectively, things like making it easier for a female to get their body weight behind the plane rather than just relying on arm muscle, by using a taller bench.

And yes, then there'll be the petite or more mature ladies for whom technique isn't going to overcome a basic lack of the strength required in the necessary places. We all have things we can't do for various reasons (my eyesight prevents me flying fighter planes) and in woodworking it's surely no different - there will be a few who simply can't manage to successfully achieve some of the heavier tasks required. They could always get a planer-thicknesser...

 

[Andy Kev.]

This thread has moved faster than I can keep up, just got back from the workshop and it's about two pages longer . Way back Tasky asked why I don't like two part adjuster yokes. It's because I find that the two parts can drift apart making adjustment difficult. ED65 PM'ed me a fix for this a while ago(I can't find my PM's under this new system!). But I would prefer not to have the issue so favour the cast yokes.
Tasky also said that it's not an issue of strength and body weight rather technique citing martial arts technique. I would agree to some extent but for beginners who have yet to develop technique men can use strength and body weight to compensate but women may not have this option. I spent some time studying the ladies technique ( a bit like a golf pro studying gold swing) and it seemed to be a problem of just not being able to keep the sole flat on the wood. With good technique once the shaving is started there should not be any need to press down, the action of the shaving pulls the sole down onto the wood. The students had difficulty getting that starting shaving or lost it part way through the cut.

D_W commented about tension between instructors in the UK. For my part I have great respect for the likes of Peter Sefton and David Charlesworth and Paul Sellars has certainly helped many newcomers on the woodworking journey. With Paul though I just cannot resist taking the Mick from his holier than thou Life style Woodworker thing.

Chris

From your observations it looks like it might be a question of physiognomy i.e. the fact that men and women are built differently. For instance, women benefit from bicycle saddles and rucksacks which are designed specifically for their frames. Workbenches have evolved for the men who predominantly used them although I think the only thing you could adjust there would be height and you're already addressing that.

That leaves the design of the planes used and it seems to me that you have only two things to fiddle about with in that area: the front knob and the rear handle. (That said the optimal length of the plane used for any given task might have a different average value for men and women.) If funds were no object it might be interesting to experiment with the various combinations of front knob and handle which Veritas offers in its customisable planes. There's also the option of those continental planes which have the weird rhino-horn thing in place of a front knob.

You also mention the matter of keeping the planes flat. Would the answer to that perhaps be to use a plane with a relatively long toe (if that's the term)? The various LA Jack planes spring to mind. On the other hand, they could be a bit on the heavy side. Maybe a narrower LA Jack needs developing specifically for the female user.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Having seen this thread continue to grow, I can't resist adding my 2d's worth! I used a golf analogy in a previous thread about planing technique, and I'll trot it out again. I remember my octogenarian grandmother beating me, a reasonably fit teenager, at golf, and learned that an advantage in physical size and brute strength fades away to nothing in comparison to skill - she had played golf most days of the week for most of her adult life. I could hit the ball further, but she could 'read' the course and conditions and could hit a ball pretty much with her eyes shut (muscle memory) and with finesse coming from regular practice. Of course, her clubs were sized to the correct length for her height - as were mine.

I think that as long as a plane is set up correctly (and I think that "correctly" is identical for both genders), and the workpiece is positioned correctly for their size/shape, and correct technique is used, women can use pretty much any plane with every bit as much skill as a male counterpart.

One point that no-one else has yet made - that may help explain some of the examples of women finding plane work difficult quoted earlier in the thread - I make from an observation with a sample size of two(!). I attended a basic blacksmithing course a while back, and there were a couple of ladies on the course of similar age to myself. They both struggled with something that I, and the other blokes, found easy - even though we were all new to blacksmithing - repeatedly hitting a small piece of metal accurately with a hammer.

Thinking about why this might be, it occurred to me that there was perhaps a "cultural", for want of a better word, difference between us. I had grown up doing DIY etc. and was used to whacking nails etc. with hammers - I already had a basic level of hand-eye co-ordination, and a "feel" for the way things behave in these situation. It occurred to me that these two ladies had not got the same basic "skill level" because they'd not engaged in similar DIY-type activities over the years and so were starting from a lower level of basic readiness. I fear that the instructor put them off learning further, as he did not recognise their difficulty for what it was.

Cheers, W2S

 

[Sheffield Tony]

Are you sure it is a gender related difference. I would guess on a regular course you get participants many of which fall into two categories:

-Those who have tried woodwork already, enjoy it and want to build skills.

-Serial craft course participants, who try lots of things looking for what does it for them, and may benefit from transferable skills.

I would guess a women's day event might attract people with more diverse motivation and experience ?

I think W2S is thinking on similar lines.

 

[Andy Kev.]

No, I'm not sure. However, the physiological differences between the sexes around the back and hip area might lead to slight but significant differences when it comes to addressing work pieces on the bench with a plane. If that is the case then it would make sense to analyse such differences and modify the ergonomics of planes for women accordingly - there's no doubt that planes have evolved to suit the male physiognomy. That said, I think that the points you and W2S are making have almost certainly got something in them. The whole matter would probably be a fascinating subject for proper Investigation and Analysis.

 

[Mr T]

Thinking about why this might be, it occurred to me that there was perhaps a "cultural", for want of a better word, difference between us. I had grown up doing DIY etc. and was used to whacking nails etc. with hammers - I already had a basic level of hand-eye co-ordination, and a "feel" for the way things behave in these situation. It occurred to me that these two ladies had not got the same basic "skill level" because they'd not engaged in similar DIY-type activities over the years and so were starting from a lower level of basic readiness. I fear that the instructor put them off learning further, as he did not recognise their difficulty for what it was.

Cheers, W2S

That is very true Woody. I think the oft quoted and related thing about women having less spacial awareness is also down in good part to socialisation. Boys play with construction toys, girls play with dolls.

You also mention the matter of keeping the planes flat. Would the answer to that perhaps be to use a plane with a relatively long toe (if that's the term)? The various LA Jack planes spring to mind. On the other hand, they could be a bit on the heavy side. Maybe a narrower LA Jack needs developing specifically for the female user.

We did find that they could cope better with a LA Jack than the standard Bailey no. 5, this bears out your suggestion. Unfortunately I only have one LA Jack.

As I will be retiring next year I don't think I will spending too much cash on plane design for women.

Chris

 

[John Brown]

So the answer to your question "Best plane for a woman", appears to be that Paul Sellers(note spelling, Mr_T), isn't a very good woodworker.

Hope that helps.