Dimensioning by hand

[Jacob]

..... Is it not easier to attempt to flatted the whole piece and then go by the cutting list and get that so correct dimensions as each component will be the same thickness?

No it's much more difficult. If there is any bend in a board you have to take more off a long piece to flatten it, as compared to say 2 shorter pieces, except small pieces best kept as one, say up to 1 metre.

 

[Ttrees]

If you've got a flat bench and use it as such, then you won't overshoot, and save effort and material.
I like to leave the second face for a while before thicknessing, just incase the jointed face moves.

 

[Jacob]

If you've got a flat bench and use it as such, then you won't overshoot, and save effort and material.
I like to leave the second face for a while before thicknessing, just incase the jointed face moves.
View attachment 141952

Sometimes I'm not sure what Ttrees is on about at all! I guess it works for him.

 

[Adam W.]

You need a glossolalia glossary.

 

[Jacob]

why would a hand tool woodworker with a reasonable supply of lumber need to rip and crosscut all of their parts out of lumber before planing anything?
...

It's standard normal practice because it's a lot easier, more accurate and a lot less wasteful.
Planing stock lengths by hand (or machine) is madness in a workshop and done only by over enthusiastic beginners.
Planing stock by machine (PAR) is a timber yard practice only for DIY convenience - starts out straight but is often bent all over the place by the time it gets to the workbench. OK for skirting boards, floor boards, mouldings, which all will be pinned tight, but not for joinery or furniture.
There's more to it than that - stock for long pieces needs to be selected first for straightness and cut to length, as twisted or bent pieces may not allow for the desired thickness, but be OK as short lengths where less has to be taken off to flatten them.
and so on, there's a whole "correct" procedure well worth getting to know, whether by hand or machine!!

 

[Ttrees]

It's standard normal practice because it's a lot easier, more accurate and a lot less wasteful.
Planing stock lengths by hand (or machine) is madness in a workshop and done only by over enthusiastic beginners.
Planing stock by machine (PAR) is a timber yard practice only for DIY convenience - starts out straight but is often bent all over the place by the time it gets to the workbench. OK for skirting boards, floor boards, mouldings, which all will be pinned tight, but not for joinery or furniture.
There's more to it than that - stock for long pieces needs to be selected first for straightness and cut to length, as twisted or bent pieces may not allow for the desired thickness, but be OK as short lengths where less has to be taken off to flatten them.
and so on, there's a whole "correct" procedure well worth getting to know, whether by hand or machine!!

So you crosscut the logs and go straight to the scrub plane?

 

[D_W]

OK, I read your original comment that we go get lumber, cut all of the parts out of it and don't touch a plane until we cut out all of the parts we'll need.

You're answering a different issue, whether or not we plane the boards first.

In a project with actual hand tool work, we would generally cut some lumber, and then plane it and make entire parts rather than making the same parts for an entire project. Then go back to the boards for the next part or segment of the work, select the wood and go through the whole set of steps.

whether we cut some parts after planing has more to do with what's convenient to plane. e.g, if you're going to make sticking for doors, it's probably not convenient to plane each piece of sticking separately from rough lumber, but rather panel sized boards cut to sticking later and if there is trouble on the backside of the saw cut, maybe a small amount of extra thickness of width is kept.

But as to not planing some long board to some arbitrary thickness like a machine thicknesser, of course not.

The thing to get power toolers out of the mind of is some idea like you're going to go through the steps on an entire project like you would with power tools.

"first we're going to cut out all of the pieces"
"then we're going to face all of the pieces"
"then we're going to square an edge"
"then we're going to thickness all of the pieces"

Far more likely to go cut a few items from the board available and then work through them from start to finish, and then do a few more. It's humorous when you tell me about correct procedure and it would be "worth it for me to get to know" as I've gone from rough to finish on more board feet as an amateur in the last ten years than you did during a schooling and career.

 

[Ttrees]

You need a glossolalia glossary.

You guys have your religion, I have mine.
The iroko man tolerates no wastage!

 

[Stevekane]

Many thanks to you all for taking the trouble to write and its all been really informative stuff, the bit of info thats really intresting for me is that the two, power and traditional planes are not exclusive but can be used together, I know its a simple enough idea but for whatever reason it hadnt clicked for me and I will definatelty give it a go.
Steve.

 

[Cooper]

What an interesting thread this has been. It reminds me of two conversations I had a very long time ago.The first was with an old boy who told me about his father who had been a ship wright. He said that his father could prepare his time with an adz as well as anyone could with a plane.
The second was when I was renovating our Victorian house a friends father, who had been a long time retired, came to help me fit replacement architraves. We were talking about our panel doors. He told me that he used to be given a length of sawn timber on site and made the whole door from it, all by hand. The doors had to fit the fames and often there were no two the exact same size. Ripping, planing, making the mouldings and cutting all the joints. Apart from the skill I was amazed that anyone had the energy to do so much physical work! A house like ours has 17 doors, for me it would have been a lifetimes work!

 

[Jacob]

So you crosscut the logs and go straight to the scrub plane?

er, no!

 

[Jacob]

..... the bit of info thats really intresting for me is that the two, power and traditional planes are not exclusive but can be used together, .....

the longest I've had to plane was some 14ft 4x4" newel posts. Very difficult to handle and control over a planer top - easier to do two sides square by hand and eye, then through the thicknesser for the other two sides.
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/threads/flattening-a-worktop.136397/page-2#post-1567169

 

[thikone]

Whos doing it? At the minute i can't afford a thicknesser. I understand the principles of dimensionsing by hand and have done it a couple of times but wondered who else does it? Its a romantic view of woodworking but i always found myself chasing my tail with it

I was dimensioning by hand because my workshop is in my apartment. Now I learn how to use P/T because I got a room in the basement to rent.

On one hand, it sometimes surprises me how fast I can get it flat and with square sides.
On the other hand, if I have to do it that 16 times it kind of stops to be fun for me...

Even though it feels like it goes fast by hand, in the end it takes several weekends to dimension all parts.
It does feel like a fitness though, which I actually like as my daily work is with computers.
And with that you need a good technique and rithm to do it for prolonged times, like with other sports.

I like video tutorials from The English Woodworker, he is very efficient at dimensioning, which is the key.
I can see with my eyes high spots, and can feel with my hand grain direction.
And I use my workbench to test for flatness (no winding sticks required).

I have Veritas scrub plane for coarse removal, then I switch to #5-1/2 with heavy camber to smooth a bit and finish with my beloved #7.
I also shoot long grain using my workbench, which is much easer than feeling 90 degree when planning edge (which I still cannot really do).

Here is dimensioning of 100x100 mm spruse, 1500 mm long, four of them:


And end result is just perfect, without any visible gap whatsoever:


These I then glued together and got 190x190 mm, this was part of cat's tree then.
And I had to repeat it 4 times, 16 parts... In the end I cheated and used small P/T to plane the oposite sides for other 3.
This took more than two month, as it was summer time and I wanted to devote at least half of each weekend to my two children...

So, there is simply too little time and too many projects that I wish I could finish.
One of them is a bed for my daughter and it has to be finished before she goes to school.
Then three foldable doors, a dinning table, a facet cabinet, a wardrobe for another daughter and a writing table for my son.
With that much pressure I need all help I can get, otherwise it would be better to sell all tools and for so much money just order them to be made.

I have now a big heavy 16" P/T, 10" and 20" bandsaws and a mortiser. A track saw and a bisquit joiner, and I'm getting domino soon.
Don't have circular miter saw anymore, I use Nobex miter saw instead, I just don't like the noise and dust it produces.
And a shooting plane with a shooting board to square the ends.

I like the fact that I first learned how to do it by hand before jumping to machines though.

 

[Jacob]

....

I like the fact that I first learned how to do it by hand before jumping to machines though.

Looks good!
Hand planing is still essential every now and then, even if doing most by machine. And it gets quicker and easier.
n.b. winding sticks are really useful. Just two laths of same height, don't have to be special, make your own. Better than checking against a flat bench.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

OK, I read your original comment that we go get lumber, cut all of the parts out of it and don't touch a plane until we cut out all of the parts we'll need.

I don't think Jacob's saying that, David. I generally follow similar practices to those Jacob described. For instance, if I've got door stiles to finish at ~1930 X 100 X ~43 mm from a rough sawn piece that's ~3000 X 250 X 50 mm I'll usually (but not always if the piece is very straight and flat) cut out of it two pieces roughly ±2000 X 110 X 50 mm and true that up. Three or four rails might be needed at roughly 760 mm long X sizes diminishing from ~160 to ~100 mm wide, all by ~43 mm thick, and with these I might double or triple up the length, plus ~80 - 100 mm to allow for snipe, to get the parts flat, but machine to ~160 mm wide if I judge I can get the thickness required out of these overlength pieces. After that, assuming success (I wouldn't do it if I wasn't sure of success), it's just a case of cutting to length and ripping off edges to create required widths for each rail.

This methodology, although probably slightly different to what Jacob's saying, does reduce the amount of planing required, and offers more likelihood that all the parts needed come out at the right dimensions, and not too small. Offcuts created during the basic ripping, crosscutting and planing to dimension can often be used for smaller parts, mouldings and the like, either in the door project, or in other unrelated projects. Odds and ends that can't be used go in the scrap bin, or in the log burner if the workshop has one. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

I don't think Jacob's saying that, David. I generally follow similar practices to those Jacob described. For instance, if I've got door stiles to finish at ~1930 X 100 X ~43 mm from a rough sawn piece that's ~3000 X 250 X 50 mm I'll usually (but not always if the piece is very straight and flat) cut out of it two pieces roughly ±2000 X 110 X 50 mm and true that up. Three or four rails might be needed at roughly 760 mm long X sizes diminishing from ~160 to ~100 mm wide, all by ~43 mm thick, and with these I might double or triple up the length, plus ~80 - 100 mm to allow for snipe, to get the parts flat, but machine to ~160 mm wide if I judge I can get the thickness required out of these overlength pieces. After that, assuming success (I wouldn't do it if I wasn't sure of success), it's just a case of cutting to length and ripping off edges to create required widths for each rail.

This methodology, although probably slightly different to what Jacob's saying, does reduce the amount of planing required, and offers more likelihood that all the parts needed come out at the right dimensions, and not too small. Offcuts created during the basic ripping, crosscutting and planing to dimension can often be used for smaller parts, mouldings and the like, either in the door project, or in other unrelated projects. Odds and ends that can't be used go in the scrap bin, or in the log burner if the workshop has one. Slainte.

It is what I am saying, nearly! No planing until all cut to size from the cutting list, though shorter pieces can be left together as one for handling convenience
Cut the long pieces first and process down the lengths or you may find you haven't any left if you've done short pieces first.
Also cut the longest first out of the shortest available, which are straight enough for the thickness desired. This accounts for the rule "leave as long as possible for as long as possible" though this gets misunderstood too. You get better "yield" this way and less wastage, as twisted and bowed pieces may be fine for short lengths at the desired thickness, but impossible for long lengths.

 

[D_W]

I don't think Jacob's saying that, David. I generally follow similar practices to those Jacob described. For instance, if I've got door stiles to finish at ~1930 X 100 X ~43 mm from a rough sawn piece that's ~3000 X 250 X 50 mm I'll usually (but not always if the piece is very straight and flat) cut out of it two pieces roughly ±2000 X 110 X 50 mm and true that up. Three or four rails might be needed at roughly 760 mm long X sizes diminishing from ~160 to ~100 mm wide, all by ~43 mm thick, and with these I might double or triple up the length, plus ~80 - 100 mm to allow for snipe, to get the parts flat, but machine to ~160 mm wide if I judge I can get the thickness required out of these overlength pieces. After that, assuming success (I wouldn't do it if I wasn't sure of success), it's just a case of cutting to length and ripping off edges to create required widths for each rail.

This methodology, although probably slightly different to what Jacob's saying, does reduce the amount of planing required, and offers more likelihood that all the parts needed come out at the right dimensions, and not too small. Offcuts created during the basic ripping, crosscutting and planing to dimension can often be used for smaller parts, mouldings and the like, either in the door project, or in other unrelated projects. Odds and ends that can't be used go in the scrap bin, or in the log burner if the workshop has one. Slainte.

This is such a hand-tool kind of interpretation that I took that maybe nobody else did.

What jacob is conveying is that with hand tools, you don't thickness all of the boards and then cut parts. You cut parts from rough lumber and then dimension. I generally agree.

The way he stated it "you cut all of the parts before you plane anything" led me to believe that he thought everything should be sawn before any planing is done at all, which if that means sawing every single rough part out before taking any to the bench, wouldn't make any sense as the variation in physical activity by sawing a few pieces from rough at a time and then working through them is far more productive than trying to cut everything out from boards at once, perhaps cutting a couple of hundred linear feet in a row instead of cutting 20 in 6 or so minute and then going to hand planing those parts.

Not sure if that makes sense.

I commented about sticking because a power tooler may cut a whole bunch of longer sticking and then plane and then cut to length later to minimize snipe loss. I generally would rather dimension a board 8" wide than three just over 2.5" for cabinet door sticking ,and then cut the sticking out of a board that's wider than needed for sticking rather than cutting sticks out of longer boards like one would do with machines.

I've cut sticking and then thicknessed the sticking itself, which is OK, but something 8" wide is nicer to plane than something 2.25 or 2.5".

Still would never use a "scrub plane" in any of this over a jack as it's no faster and it's far less intuitive for follow-on flatness, and far more likely to blow edges out, which should never happen hand planing good wood in the first place. The only thing that comes to mind is that sawing can be hard on the back side of a cut if it's fast hand sawing but that can be mitigated, too, and sometimes the back side of the cut won't show, anyway.

I won't go into methods to deal with lessening break out on the back side of a cut because nobody here is going to do to them, anyway.

 

[Jacob]

This is such a hand-tool kind of interpretation that I took that maybe nobody else did.

What jacob is conveying is that with hand tools, you don't thickness all of the boards and then cut parts. You cut parts from rough lumber and then dimension. I generally agree.

The way he stated it "you cut all of the parts before you plane anything" led me to believe that he thought everything should be sawn before any planing is done at all, which if that means sawing every single rough part out before taking any to the bench,

Yes that's what I'm saying. You've got it! You take boards already sawn to the nearest usable size and then saw to the component size. It's normal practice, by hand or by machine!

wouldn't make any sense as the variation in physical activity by sawing a few pieces from rough at a time and then working through them is far more productive than trying to cut everything out from boards at once,

If you are making any quantity of items or anything really, machine or by hand, you have to do each stage complete before moving on:
e.g. saw all stuff to length and width according to cutting list, plane best all faces and edges square and marked, marking gauge for planing to thickness and width, stack components on the rod for marking, mark 100% - the whole lot. Cut all mortices, cut all tenon cheeks, plane rebates/mouldings, cut tenon shoulders, etc etc.
If making say 5 sash windows, or tables with drawers, you end up with perhaps hundreds of finished components. Has to be systematic and always verifiable against the rod at every stage.

perhaps cutting a couple of hundred linear feet in a row instead of cutting 20 in 6 or so minute and then going to hand planing those parts.

Not sure if that makes sense.

No it doesn't.

....

Still would never use a "scrub plane" ....

Nor me as a rule. The scrub finish is likely to be rougher than the sawn finish. Scrub plane is for "scrubbing" i.e. cleaning up old and /or painted timber.

PS I seem to have explained all this several hundred times since I started on message boards years ago!!

 

[D_W]

What an interesting thread this has been. It reminds me of two conversations I had a very long time ago.The first was with an old boy who told me about his father who had been a ship wright. He said that his father could prepare his time with an adz as well as anyone could with a plane.
The second was when I was renovating our Victorian house a friends father, who had been a long time retired, came to help me fit replacement architraves. We were talking about our panel doors. He told me that he used to be given a length of sawn timber on site and made the whole door from it, all by hand. The doors had to fit the fames and often there were no two the exact same size. Ripping, planing, making the mouldings and cutting all the joints. Apart from the skill I was amazed that anyone had the energy to do so much physical work! A house like ours has 17 doors, for me it would have been a lifetimes work!

I wonder if and when most of this stuff was done by hand on site and how. In the states, cost dominated even from early on, so a site guy would've showed up with some reasonably close-sized stock and then modified by hand as needed, stick building bits in.

My parents have cabinets like this - their house was wealthy person's summer home, but it's a summer home, not a mansion. The wealth allowed the owner to build a kitchen full of cabinets lower and upper, a room about 15 feet square. There are other unusual things, so it's not all cabinets (like three doors, an area that would've been for a cook stove near the middle, etc, and a pass through area so that food could be given through a sliding door into an informal eating area - a breakfast or lunch nook that's south facing).

At any rate, the cabinetry is relatively cheaply made, but all solid wood (flat panel doors, but no ply), and built in situ. you'd be surprised how fast you could build that, along with how low site wages for private work were at the time. You could do the cabinet build in on a site like that by hand in maybe a week or two at most. even with about 25 linear feet of base cabinets, a tall supply cabinet and about 10 linear feet of uppers.

As you say, I doubt any of the doors could be taken out of one cabinet and put in another, but it doesn't matter - 98 years later, the cabinets are still there and the off-side (away from the sink) is still the original wooden countertop. the food prep side of the kitchen has had the countertops replaced at least three times now and is modern "junk" (granite) with a modern sink and dishwasher, etc.

My cabinets in my own home were site built, probably replacing the originals in the late 70s. How little there is to them compared to standalone cabinets is somewhat shocking. The faces and doors look like spec/supply cabinets, but what was built in behind them came out showing far less stock than you'd expect.

Pre-war here in the states, a kitchen would've had only a few upper cabinets, a few lowers at most, and often a work top with shelves built under it with a good part of the supply area covered by curtains instead of full blown cabinets. The amount of material in current cabinets and the desire to have them factory made (and the kitchen installed in a day with no residual dirt) would've probably priced out the site guy.

 

[D_W]

Yes that's what I'm saying. You've got it! You take boards already sawn to the nearest usable size and then saw to the component size. It's normal practice, by hand or by machine!

If you are making any quantity of items or anything really, machine or by hand, you have to do each stage complete before moving on:
e.g. saw all stuff to length and width according to cutting list, plane best all faces and edges square and marked, marking gauge for planing to thickness and width, stack components on the rod for marking, mark 100% - the whole lot. Cut all mortices, cut all tenon cheeks, plane rebates/mouldings, cut tenon shoulders, etc etc.
If making say 5 sash windows, or tables with drawers, you end up with perhaps hundreds of finished components. Has to be systematic and always verifiable against the rod at every stage.

No it doesn't.

Nor me as a rule. The scrub finish is likely to be rougher than the sawn finish. Scrub plane is for "scrubbing" i.e. cleaning up old and /or painted timber.

PS I seem to have explained all this several hundred times since I started on message boards years ago!!

Jacob, I don't believe you've done much of it. If you're doing neat work, you wouldn't cut 250 or 300 linear feet in a row and assume it's more efficient. It leads to fatigue and inaccuracy. If the work is crude, it won't matter. If it's not, neatness of the hand sawing and attention to quality of it rather than just blasting through saves a great deal of time and improves results.

You may have been taught to do this by someone who learned woodworking on power tools where constantly staging machines for a little bit at a time does make a difference for productivity, or maybe for site work where you have to stage an area for each task.

in a shop and at a bench, there is no area staging or anything of the sort that would necessitate cutting all of the mortices in a row, or sawing all in a row and it actually takes less space to do bits of the work at a time. this isn't site work, it's bench work, there is no argument that there's efficiency in trying to do every step all at once for all of the timbers. It shows a lack of concept or actual doing of any of this for an entire work day. Nobody here is pushing a plane for 8 hours, but plenty could do a combination of sawing, joining and planing in rotation for segments of a project at a time, only stopping when too tired to do all of them.

I'm not sure who would be scrubbing paint from old wood - again, very little of the woodworking forum discussions have to do with site work vs. bench work in a shop with new wood.



I posted pictures of this cabinet long ago, in progress and then finished. I have no idea how may linear feet of sawing was involved, but it may have been on the order of 300 or 400 feet. There isn't a person on here who would do it neatly all in a row and that would create a huge problem. There's probably a bunch here who think they couldn't handsaw that much in linear stock footage, but that's also not true - it's not a matter of fitness, it's a matter of being in the loop of using the tools and recognizing a working pattern that you can sustain. sawing and crosscutting 400 or 600 feet in a row isn't it.