Essential hand planes

[Tasky]

Obviously at some point one will need a plough plane and a router plane but I assume that that is an uncontroversial statement.

I assume that, whatever your opinion, someone else will argue that you don't need whatever it is and can do all that (and more) with just a No.4 morticing chisel and 20 years practice.

If it works for you, do it.
Just yesterday I made a pair of recesses, one with a router, one with a chisel... just because I felt like doing it.

 

[D_W]

I can't think of a situation where a scrub plane is actually faster than a jack plane with a fair amount of camber. The stanley issue is easy to explain away given the construction site stock narrowing explanation.

I have a plane set up like the euro scrub planes, and it's pleasant to use cross grain on panels, but not much else (the caveat with blown out far-side edges still exists. I don't know that it's faster than the English jack plane, but it might be easier to use cross grain on narrower wood. Without knowing someone who has read continental european texts (in german, etc), it's hard to tell.

the other thing you'll notice about them is that they're two-handed planes if you want to do heavy work, and the horn is handy, but they can be rough on you (shoulders and elbows) in heavy work.

 

[D_W]

Chris has written books on benches, toolchests, campaign furniture, staked furniture and probably others. For those books, he's built the furniture, benches or toolchests he illustrates, and from reading his blog, he's also furnished his house and built quite a few items for others. In the course of doing all that, he's sawn a lot of wood, and his methods seem to work well enough for him.

Maybe he's more concerned about the end result that the minutiae of the process of getting there. He's found his way to saw his wood to length, and then get on with joining it together to make what he needs to. He's found a way to keep his tools sharp, and doesn't bother that there may be a gazillion minor variations, or different brands of oilstone.

You do your thing in your own time and with your own money, for your own satisfaction. You like trying every last variation of a particular process - which blade steel works best for you, which minor variation of plane design suits you best. That's fine - carry on. It's your hobby. But don't be too quick to sneer at others doing woodwork a slightly different way. Their end goal might be a bit different, but just as valid, and it might also be of interest to others.

So, I say he does sloppy work and is awkward with the tools, and is good at publishing books, and what you take from that is that I think he doesn't use the right tools or process? How much clearer could it be - he's a mediocre woodworker, his books that are written by someone else (with more knowledge) and published by him are great, and his books (tool chests and workbenches) are sort of low-level fare. I think I might have the workbench book somewhere, but I can't be sure. I never had the urge to get it out when I was forced to build another bench.

In case it's not clear, there is a world of literature and ideas by people who are really good at woodworking (or carving, or toolmaking, etc). I'd prefer to exhaust qualified sources that don't change their minds or push tools. There are lots of those qualified sources, but I guess they don't come with news updates about "woodworking in america" must buy items, or "proof" to readers that buying a capable $10 chisel is "false economy" vs. buying lie nielsen tools. When you're incompetent, all kinds of spoon fed foolishness seems like a great idea.

He has sold a lot of tools, though, and has a semi-religious following. You're right, there are a lot of people who seem to be more into the fluff than the details, but good work takes details. Not jamming saws, not clenching nails in random directions, not flip flopping about cap irons or recommending $550 dovetail saws. It's the lite version, but if you like it, that's fine.

I'd prefer 10 minutes with klausz or frid, or nicholson to hours with CS. But when Chris publishes other peoples' work, I will buy it if I like it. He does that well.

Let me give you an example of what talking to a professional will do for you vs. reading about workbenches or other nonsense that you can figure out on your own (or making tool chests to sit static in your shop): Last night, I was discussing a plane that I'm making - with George Wilson. I am *extremely* lucky to be able to talk to George. I said something about figuring out how to hand file plane soles and sides to flat and square within a 1 1/2 thousandth feeler and a good reference. Steel infill planes do not hand lap well, because the steel is a lot more resistant to abrasion from paper (more gummy). I was pleased with myself for finding a fast-cutting file that can flex so that I can file areas on a plane sole without filing over the edges. George said "take any file, drill holes in it with a tile bit and fix it to a bar or a board and put a piece of cardboard under the file before you tighten it.

That's better than my idea, I suspect, and I'm going to use it. George is an expert toolmaker (and instrument maker, and diemaker, and a million other things). If he wrote books, he'd have no suggestion other than mailing the plane to a machine shop. You're not likely to find him traveling around instructing people on how to cut dovetails or what they should buy. He can talk to you about how you can do fine work, where your designs need improvement, etc. Chris can show you how to make a mediocre version of something for your shop that you don't really need.

But he does have a lot of fans in the "YMMV" crowd.

 

[Jacob]

I can't think of a situation where a scrub plane is actually faster than a jack plane with a fair amount of camber. .....

If you use a scrub for its intended purpose (IMHO) it will be much faster than a jack and can do stuff which a jack could not begin to touch.
Clue to scrub's intended purpose is in the name; 'scrub'.
It is ideal for scrubbing up difficult and dirty surfaces such as old timbers with grit, other rubbish, paint etc. It cuts deep into the clean wood underneath and lifts off the grot in the shavings, where a wider blade with a shallow camber would have to cut through it and rapidly become blunt. Try planing old painted timber with a normal jack - it's not easy.
The scrub does it by having a very rounded camber and a narrow blade - ripping a deep but narrow trough very easily (fastest across the grain at 45º ish but will work at any angle).
It'd also double up, for bench work or on trestles , for work you might do with an adze or side axe (or a chain saw!).
It's a very minority use, hence the steel scrub was virtually unknown in the UK (until LN cashed in with their expensive version) and fairly uncommon in USA.
I'd never heard of them at all for a long time - perhaps because they were called "Bismarck" planes here as they copied the European style with a horn front handle. The wooden ones are also rare here and I've only ever seen one on ebay which wasn't an ECE or similar import. I bought it as part of a job lot of an old cabinet makers working tool set - he probably made it himself as it's made of offcuts of some very decorative looking oak.

 

[Tasky]

The scrub does it by having a very rounded camber and a narrow blade - ripping a deep but narrow trough very easily.
It'd also double up, for bench work or on trestles , for work you'd do with an adze or side axe.
It's a very minority use, hence the steel scrub was virtually unknown in the UK (until LN cashed in with their expensive version) and fairly uncommon in USA.

I think there's further confusion because Scrub planes take off large amounts of wood, so anything that does this 'must' be a Scrub plane... even if it's just a really good Jack. Most times I've seen it, it's people using a modded #4 or #5 to "scrub off" lots of wood, with only Richard Maguire using a wooden one for the same purpose.
It's always been small-ish benchwork, though, never large bits of wood.

 

[D_W]

I can't think of a situation where a scrub plane is actually faster than a jack plane with a fair amount of camber. .....

If you use a scrub for its intended purpose (IMHO) it will be much faster than a jack and can do stuff which a jack could not begin to touch.
Clue to scrub's intended purpose is in the name; 'scrub'.
It is ideal for scrubbing up difficult and dirty surfaces such as old timbers with grit, other rubbish, paint etc. It cuts deep into the clean wood underneath and lifts off the grot in the shavings, where a wider blade with a shallow camber would have to cut through it and rapidly become blunt. Try planing old painted timber with a normal jack - it's not easy.
The scrub does it by having a very rounded camber and a narrow blade - ripping a deep but narrow trough very easily (fastest across the grain at 45º ish but will work at any angle).
It'd also double up, for bench work or on trestles , for work you might do with an adze or side axe (or a chain saw!).
It's a very minority use, hence the steel scrub was virtually unknown in the UK (until LN cashed in with their expensive version) and fairly uncommon in USA.
I'd never heard of them at all for a long time - perhaps because they were called "Bismarck" planes here as they copied the European style with a horn front handle. The wooden ones are also rare here and I've only ever seen one on ebay which wasn't an ECE or similar import. I bought it as part of a job lot of an old cabinet makers working tool set - he probably made it himself as it's made of offcuts of some very decorative looking oak.

It sounds like you have a jack set with a flatter camber than someone would if they were dimensioning rough wood by hand. It's not a relevant comparison. If the jack plane isn't removing a similar volume of wood (even if it is a bit flatter), then your jack is set up too shallow.

 

[Jacob]

[.......
It's always been small-ish benchwork, though, never large bits of wood.

I've used one to clean up the face of an old reclaimed joist prior to using a jack plane or machining it. The scrub is very fast, takes off all the rubbish, may get a nick or two from old nails (if you missed a couple when removing them first!) but still works, if there aren't too many nails. You can then see where the nails are and take them out with a parrot beak.
You could grind a jack to have a similar blade profile but it would be a bit pointless - the little light woody versions are much easier to use.
I wouldn't know this if I hadn't bought an ECE scrub and used it a lot and compared it to using a jack. They are excellent for this one purpose, but no use as a general purpose plane.

 

[D_W]

I have an older functional equivalent to your ece scrub, and have had a couple of metal scrubs.

You're more or less talking about construction use. However, all of those things were done for a long time with a jack plane (in England and the US) without anyone ever thinking they needed a scrub plane.

The items that you described as complicating the work (dirty lumber, nails, etc) would've existed when people were using jack planes. Not sure a joist would've been planed, though.

Curious if the draw for construction work is the size of the plane or the ability for it to do quick work in wood that's not flat, whereas a 17 inch long jack plane would span some sections. Thinking about narrowing a door, I would do it with a jack plane and try plane, and not a scrub, but i'm not carrying those two to a site, either.

 

[Jacob]

however, all of those things were done for a long time with a jack plane (in England and the US) without anyone ever thinking they needed a scrub plane.

Probably why there aren't many of them about - nobody needed them very much.

Never used one on site but come to think a scrub could be very handy for scribing e.g. the outer edges of a door frame if a bit too tight and the plane marks to be out of sight when fixed.
But never on a door itself - it would have to be in a very bad way to need hacking at with a scrub plane!

Modifying a jack to use as a scrub - not easy to grind a 2 1/2" blade down to 1 1/4" wide with 1 1/4" radius camber, and a waste of a good plane!

 

[D_W]

just because they couldn't tell a playdoh egg from sculpture.

Your comment reminds me of the Cloud Gate chrome bean :mrgreen:

That's interesting. First wonder seeing something like that is how the surface was refined to a gloss, and it looks like it was literally ground, sanded and polished into shininess.

The other interesting thing from the article is that it appears China has made something similar, and people want "legal action" to be taken. It's an interesting sculpture (if you'd go so far to call it as that), but I think kidney beans and mercury might sue the guy who made it if he can sue china for making something similar.

 

[patrickjchase]

Let me give you an example of what talking to a professional will do for you vs. reading about workbenches or other nonsense that you can figure out on your own (or making tool chests to sit static in your shop): Last night, I was discussing a plane that I'm making - with George Wilson. I am *extremely* lucky to be able to talk to George. I said something about figuring out how to hand file plane soles and sides to flat and square within a 1 1/2 thousandth feeler and a good reference. Steel infill planes do not hand lap well, because the steel is a lot more resistant to abrasion from paper (more gummy). I was pleased with myself for finding a fast-cutting file that can flex so that I can file areas on a plane sole without filing over the edges. George said "take any file, drill holes in it with a tile bit and fix it to a bar or a board and put a piece of cardboard under the file before you tighten it.

Tangential to the discussion, but "hand" pattern files were traditionally made with thickness taper such that they were flat on one face and bellied on the other, precisely to enable that use without any fixtures or contraptions. The Vallorbe Valtitans at a minimum are still made that way, though they're expensive at $20/file and up. If I have some spare moments I'll take a picture of one of mine in profile.

Nicholson's old "Filosophy" book deals with this on pp. 8-9 and 31, though they don't specify that only one face should be convex. https://ia801302.us.archive.org/30/...osophy1928/Nicholson File Philosophy 1928.pdf
If you're stuck with a mass-manufactured "straight" file then George's solution obviously works. One of the old file makers (Nicholson?) used to sell a fixture like that with predrilled files, so it has a long tradition.

George Wilson is obviously a wood- and metal-working God. I know that everybody on his usual forum of choice has their fingers crossed for him to make a speedy recovery and return to posting.

 

[Racers]

I couldn't live without a block plane.

My minimum is N08 5 1/2 and LN 62.

Pete

I had the same feeling early on, and at the time, I also though it should be low angle. If you went without it for a little while and used a stanley 3 or 4 and could manage with one hand, you'd probably find out that you can do without the block plane with little trouble, and may prefer not to use it in general.

The only thing where I favor a block plane is on the ends of very small exposed (through) tenons - faceting/beveling the narrow side of them accurately can be a bit difficult with a larger plane. Even that, though, can be done very well with a quick pop of a chisel.

My love of a chamfer means my block plane gets a lot of use, I just count the strokes and job done.

Pete

 

[patrickjchase]

If you use a scrub for its intended purpose (IMHO) it will be much faster than a jack and can do stuff which a jack could not begin to touch.
Clue to scrub's intended purpose is in the name; 'scrub'.
It is ideal for scrubbing up difficult and dirty surfaces such as old timbers with grit, other rubbish, paint etc. It cuts deep into the clean wood underneath and lifts off the grot in the shavings, where a wider blade with a shallow camber would have to cut through it and rapidly become blunt.

Why must a Jack have "shallow camber"? You can (and many of us do) easily put similar camber on a Jack as on a Scrub, thereby negating your entire argument. English Fore and Jack planes were traditionally ground with what 18th century texts have described as a "thumb's nail profile" IIRC. Admittedly you can't fully extend such an iron such that it cuts all the way across, but that's not a practical limitation.

That's really David's point: There is nothing that a scrub can do that a Jack can't *if that Jack is properly configured for roughing*. At the same time the Jack has many useful features (most notably a cap iron) that the Scrub doesn't. As I said in a previous post this is a case where the Continental and English traditions evolved different solutions to similar problems, and IMO the English tradition ended with the better answer.

 

[StraightOffTheArk]

The January 1937 edition of The Woodworker describes a 'roughing or scrub' plane and its use in pretty much the same terms as Jacob - it's advantages being that it is 'handy' and dedicated to being used in situations where you might worry about damaging other planes, I suspect that the latter quality (limiting damage to this one plane) is the most important, both in those and more modern times. Also, in my limited understanding, its short length is considered an advantage compared to a Jack, as it allows you to concentrate on removing material without being hindered by keeping the surface flat.

Cheers,

Carl

 

[D_W]

Tangential to the discussion, but "hand" pattern files were traditionally made with thickness taper such that they were flat on one face and bellied on the other, precisely to enable that use without any fixtures or contraptions. The Vallorbe Valtitans at a minimum are still made that way, though they're expensive at $20/file and up. If I have some spare moments I'll take a picture of one of mine in profile.

Nicholson's old "Filosophy" book deals with this on pp. 8-9 and 31, though they don't specify that only one face should be convex. https://ia801302.us.archive.org/30/...osophy1928/Nicholson File Philosophy 1928.pdf
If you're stuck with a mass-manufactured "straight" file then George's solution obviously works. One of the old file makers (Nicholson?) used to sell a fixture like that with predrilled files, so it has a long tradition.

George Wilson is obviously a wood- and metal-working God. I know that everybody on his usual forum of choice has their fingers crossed for him to make a speedy recovery and return to posting.

I'm sure there are fixtures galore to manipulate files and like tools for bodywork (some of the vixens are pre-drilled to be affixed or bent into something). I'm partial to the Simonds Multi-Kut for fast draw filing, because they're (fairly large) interrupted tooth and cut easily and can be bent just with hand pressure. Sometime in the next couple of weeks, I should have a chance to try a few new things.

And, they're cheap. A file per infill plane is probably accurate for consumption. The smaller expensive files that only do corners last a lot longer, but flat files get wasted fairly quickly (if you can call a whole bunch of metalwork on a 10 pound wood and metal object a "waste". No guilt grinding edges off of them, either, to make them to suit.

 

[patrickjchase]

And, they're cheap. A file per infill plane is probably accurate for consumption. The smaller expensive files that only do corners last a lot longer, but flat files get wasted fairly quickly (if you can call a whole bunch of metalwork on a 10 pound wood and metal object a "waste". No guilt grinding edges off of them, either, to make them to suit.

What material do you use for the soles of your infills?

I ask because the higher-end files (Valtitan, Corrinox, etc) have hard-chrome finishes that raise their surface hardness to ~Rc72. If the metals you're working are hard enough then they end up being (potentially a lot) more cost-effective than cheap files. They don't cut quite as cleanly as a really good carbon-steel file though.

For HCS the breakpoint is around Rc52 IMO: Below that plain files are cheaper, above that Valtitan/Corrinox wins. For other alloys with more carbides etc the situation is more complex.

 

[D_W]

Generally just annealed mild steel. Far (far far far) softer than 52. I don't even like to use O1 any longer because it machines more slowly (though the precision ground O1 is a much more accurate starting point if you're working by hand - I've learned to hammer the mild steel so that it's reasonably flat to start.).

There's an online retailer in PA who sells the multikut files for $8 with a handle on them, which makes them cheap enough to grind if you want to safe edge them and just waste one, or in the current case, grind a 20 degree profile off of the edge of one to file a skew mouth.

I do like the swiss files, but not for general hogging work.

 

[Jacob]

......

Why must a Jack have "shallow camber"? You can (and many of us do) easily put similar camber on a Jack as on a Scrub,......

Scrub blades are narrow about 1 1/4", camber radius about the same i.e. diameter 2 1/2" = about the width of a jack plane blade. You could file that on a jack plane but it'd be very peculiar and useless for anything else but deep scrubbing. Waste of a good plane - and too heavy for scrubbing which involves a lot of fast action.

Just noticed the LV offering is a bit wider at 1 1/2" but lets face it it's an expensive marketing exercise, not a tool which anybody needs and would be less effective then the narrower ECE light woody

 

[patrickjchase]

......

Why must a Jack have "shallow camber"? You can (and many of us do) easily put similar camber on a Jack as on a Scrub,......

Scrub blades are narrow about 1 1/4", camber radius about the same i.e. diameter 2 1/2" = about the width of a jack plane blade. You could file that on a jack plane but it'd be very peculiar and useless for anything else but deep scrubbing. Waste of a good plane - and too heavy for scrubbing which involves a lot of fast action.

A 2.5" camber radius on a 2" wide Jack iron would extend back about 0.2" measured along the iron, i.e. the curved part would be 1/5" long from corners to tip. That's consistent with historical practice for traditional English Jack/Fore planes. As I said earlier, the texts describe a "thumb's nail profile". I also know of more than a few modern WWers who use such cambers in their Jacks (though I personally use ~5-6").

Your main limitations here seem to be lack of historical knowledge and a failure of imagination. Things that you keep insisting are "impossible" are/were actually common practice.

 

[D_W]

......

Why must a Jack have "shallow camber"? You can (and many of us do) easily put similar camber on a Jack as on a Scrub,......

Scrub blades are narrow about 1 1/4", camber radius about the same i.e. diameter 2 1/2" = about the width of a jack plane blade. You could file that on a jack plane but it'd be very peculiar and useless for anything else but deep scrubbing. Waste of a good plane - and too heavy for scrubbing which involves a lot of fast action.

Just noticed the LV offering is a bit wider at 1 1/2" but lets face it it's an expensive marketing exercise, not a tool which anybody needs and would be less effective then the narrower ECE light woody

I am not good at reading historical practice. I fiddle with something until I find easiest, but I never take a full width shaving with a jack plane. If the wood gets harder, my shaving gets narrower, which seems a sensible thing to do (because it makes the harder woods easier to work rather than trying to set up a plane to force a full width shaving). I'd guess the typical cherry jack plane shaving that I take is between 1 and 1 1/2 inches, depending on how easy the wood works (if it lets you work deeper, you do it).

I've measured radius one time, and I can't remember what it was, because there's never been a point in time that I set a plane up based on whatever makes it work easily.

I've also never gotten a plane from anyone else and had a decent jack profile on a jack or fore plane, but I have gotten a lot of those set up as smoothers because that's what people like to do to set up a plane -have a lot of smoothers. If the thickness planer wasn't so popular for the last 150 years, maybe more planes would show up used with a rank set.

I'm sure Chris Schwarz has a suggestion (and I say that, because I remember at one point, he must've posted about the radii of various plane irons - it was an excited topic for a little bit - maybe excited because people had never used a jack plane). There are too many variables (let laziness be the guide) to rely on someones' written radius. They could be working cheap pine and you good quality cherry or them maple and you second growth not-so-great cherry.

I keep two jacks under my bench. Mostly because the first one isn't pretty enough to sell and it's really a copy of a 2 1/2" iron mathieson closed handle 17" fore. The second jack, I seem to build about 4 or 5 a year either for having one begged away or for another reason that seems more suitable than me just selling a plane to someone to see if I can get money out of them and keep it for myself. Because of that, I get to set up a jack plane with new camber (the old irons are almost always straight, and if not, very close) - it's definitely not more than 5 minutes on the CBN wheel, and only the cap iron is needed to make sure that the profile - by eye - is relatively centered with the fit of the cap iron. Two corner facets grounded square, then round the whole thing, then cut the bevel. Praise Jesus and pass the CBN wheel. Haven't overheated one yet.

I hope the next person who gets one of my planes sets the camber to whatever they prefer.