Fashion and the Art of Hand Planing.

[Jacob]

... I doubt many people use a drawknife, which (in combination with a hatchet) may be the reason that there wasn't a "scrub plane" 250 years ago when people think such a thing would've actually been useful.

Adze would be the tool of choice. But no doubt people would have "scrubbed" with an old plane past it's best, if they happened to have one.

Scrub planes are also popular with people who sand furniture and use power planers, because conceptually they seem to make sense like they'd be useful. Dimension 150 board feet of decent quality lumber, though, and you come up empty with things where something else doesn't work better. .....

I'd never heard of a scrub plane until relatively recently - they came back into fashion when rediscovered by LN (or LV). I bought an ECE woody and one thing it is useful for is cleaning off rough surfaces from reclaimed wood - hence the name I suppose. I've only ever seen one in the wild (i.e. not one of the new breed) which was home made - in an old cabinet makers collection, Bismarck pattern with a horn shaped handle like the ECE.

Infill planes were surely just an intermediary - an early design of (part) metal plane soon superceded by the one piece casting.

 

[Trafalgar]

The scrub plane, a Bismarck, is mentioned prominently in Wells and Hooper's Modern Cabinet Work as the first plane to use, then the jack, etc. etc. There is a precedence in British woodworking for these, though they obviously went out-of-house so to speak for the tool itself.

 

[worn thumbs]

Its interesting that there are references to infill planes in this thread.In the context of fashion,they could be said to have achieved their sales as a result of being in vogue.A screw adjustment would have been more convenient for the user and the metal sole would have been much more durable than the beech alternative.Obviously the Stanley/Bailey pattern offered most of the advantage of an infill at a fraction of the cost.Now the infill seems to be having a bit of a revival in the amateur woodworking world because a professional wouldn't spend great chunks of time hand planing now-the wood would go from the thicknesser to the sander and come out clean.

The vogue for very hard irons may pass too.They ought to hold an edge for longer,but surely the extra hardness means that it takes longer to return them to sharpness.Similarly the fashion for replica Bedrock pattern tools depends on the work being undertaken,a heavy plane may be a great aid to shooting edges prior to gluing up a panel.Its not what you would be looking for if you were a boatbuilder kneeling under a hull and planing off a couple of new planks.You would want a light and sharp plane.Maybe thats the crux of the matter-determine what your needs really are and ignore the fashionable movements of the day.

 

[Racers]

The vogue for very hard irons may pass too.They ought to hold an edge for longer,but surely the extra hardness means that it takes longer to return them to sharpness.

I doubt it, a blade that stays sharper for longer is something people have strived for years, the down time is not significant compared to the time its being used.
More wear resistant grits are the way to go with harder steel e.g. diamond stones/water stones etc.

Taken to the extreme a lead blade would be very quick to sharpen :wink:

Pete

 

[D_W]

Probably well to remember that molding planes never featured cap irons. And running moldings represented a pretty critical bit of planing. Certainly a higher pitch and a tight mouth were the order of the day but if it worked, it worked.

The reality of the rest of planing, basically removing wood to a set of marked lines, is simple work and in the heyday of hand tool woodworking in a decent sized firm was relegated to the lower rungs of the ladder. We're debating the work a thirteen year old boy would have been expected to perform, and did perform, practically flawlessly.

Well, maybe they didn't turn the adolescents loose on this piece from the 1750s:

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/T ... oryid=1363

How does one reconcile this 250+ year old tour-de-force (do scroll down) to all the Chicken Littles running around today talking about tear-out and such?

And here:

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/G ... oryid=1363

The description of this piece is a must-read.

There's no economic benefit to mouding planes having cap irons. The technical setup and making would be harder than bench planes, they're usually working the straightest wood and something else is doing the heavy work. Not a good comparison to bench planes. I'd say the same thing about rabbet planes, but you can find those in double iron, and you only have to go to the effort with one or two planes rather than 14 or 18.

The marginization of the fact that the double iron plane eliminated the single iron plane in the hands of the apprentices ignores the fact that the double iron planes are faster. If they weren't, they wouldn't have been put in the hands of the apprentices. They work better for the full range of work, speed notwithstanding (they stay in the cut for a longer cycle of an iron, etc).

 

[D_W]

The vogue for very hard irons may pass too.They ought to hold an edge for longer,but surely the extra hardness means that it takes longer to return them to sharpness.

I doubt it, a blade that stays sharper for longer is something people have strived for years, the down time is not significant compared to the time its being used.
More wear resistant grits are the way to go with harder steel e.g. diamond stones/water stones etc.

Taken to the extreme a lead blade would be very quick to sharpen :wink:

Pete

I think it's the ultimate promise to a beginner, an iron that stays sharp for a very long period of time. But the equation holds only if the user can't learn how to sharpen the irons the way they would've been 150 years ago (in one or two steps rather than a whole bunch).

Takes about 1 minute to sharpen a vintage iron with a washita stone and leather strop, and probably somewhere around another minute to take a plane apart and put it back together. I can't remember what it used to take me with guides and a progression of stones, etc, but probably double that when you factor in needing to flatten stones and screw around with them.

though it's not a perfect comparison, the wonder steels made a trip through the straight razor community in the early 1900s, especially steels with additional tungsten. They eventually fell on their face and the standard razoring went back to "best silver steel" or some other relatively generic carbon steel. Japanese razors makers later than that got fascinated with making razors harder, but they don't work right on the strop then and in the end they're a little less convenient than a razor of traditional hardness used with a traditional linen and strop.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I think it's the ultimate promise to a beginner, an iron that stays sharp for a very long period of time. But the equation holds only if the user can't learn how to sharpen the irons the way they would've been 150 years ago (in one or two steps rather than a whole bunch).

David, there are two assumptions in this paragraph. The first is that a long lasting iron is aimed at "a beginner". Again, there are those that collect ultimate tools and those that use the bloody things. I work with very abrasive woods. These are not the sole domain of Australia. O1 steel does not hold an edge for long. I have demonstrated this with chisels. It is pathetic compared with PM-V11 or White Steel. I have Clifton (the old version) blades for my LN planes. These are used alongside the LN A2 blades. The Clifton blades are sweet .. for 1 minute, and then they are dull.

Now I do not know how they sharpened irons 150 years ago. Do you? In any event, the system I use for sharpening is extremely efficient. The measure of this is that re-sharpening is not something that I consider to be an effort.

Takes about 1 minute to sharpen a vintage iron with a washita stone and leather strop, and probably somewhere around another minute to take a plane apart and put it back together. I can't remember what it used to take me with guides and a progression of stones, etc, but probably double that when you factor in needing to flatten stones and screw around with them.

I hone A2, PM-V11, White Steel and CPM-3V in under 1 minute as well. These are freehanded on hollow grinds. I use Spyderco stones and Veritas green compound. No need to flatten any stones. Very sharp.

though it's not a perfect comparison, the wonder steels made a trip through the straight razor community in the early 1900s, especially steels with additional tungsten. They eventually fell on their face and the standard razoring went back to "best silver steel" or some other relatively generic carbon steel. Japanese razors makers later than that got fascinated with making razors harder, but they don't work right on the strop then and in the end they're a little less convenient than a razor of traditional hardness used with a traditional linen and strop.

I am not surprised that these alloys were hard to hone in 1900 ... on oil stones! I doubt that they would be much of a challenge on modern gear. In any event, examples from knife makers are not always applicable to woodworkers.

I am not knocking the merits of vintage steels that have been hammered and laminated. It is just that they are not freely available and there are modern replacements that are superior. The bottom line is that the goal posts have shifted, although the mind set of some has not.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

Derek: what grinding wheel do you use for hollow grinding? Your CBN?

Thanks,

T.Z.

 

[D_W]

I think it's the ultimate promise to a beginner, an iron that stays sharp for a very long period of time. But the equation holds only if the user can't learn how to sharpen the irons the way they would've been 150 years ago (in one or two steps rather than a whole bunch).

David, there are two assumptions in this paragraph. The first is that a long lasting iron is aimed at "a beginner". Again, there are those that collect ultimate tools and those that use the bloody things. I work with very abrasive woods. These are not the sole domain of Australia. O1 steel does not hold an edge for long. I have demonstrated this with chisels. It is pathetic compared with PM-V11 or White Steel. I have Clifton (the old version) blades for my LN planes. These are used alongside the LN A2 blades. The Clifton blades are sweet .. for 1 minute, and then they are dull.

Now I do not know how they sharpened irons 150 years ago. Do you? In any event, the system I use for sharpening is extremely efficient. The measure of this is that re-sharpening is not something that I consider to be an effort.

Takes about 1 minute to sharpen a vintage iron with a washita stone and leather strop, and probably somewhere around another minute to take a plane apart and put it back together. I can't remember what it used to take me with guides and a progression of stones, etc, but probably double that when you factor in needing to flatten stones and screw around with them.

I hone A2, PM-V11, White Steel and CPM-3V in under 1 minute as well. These are freehanded on hollow grinds. I use Spyderco stones and Veritas green compound. No need to flatten any stones. Very sharp.

though it's not a perfect comparison, the wonder steels made a trip through the straight razor community in the early 1900s, especially steels with additional tungsten. They eventually fell on their face and the standard razoring went back to "best silver steel" or some other relatively generic carbon steel. Japanese razors makers later than that got fascinated with making razors harder, but they don't work right on the strop then and in the end they're a little less convenient than a razor of traditional hardness used with a traditional linen and strop.

I am not surprised that these alloys were hard to hone in 1900 ... on oil stones! I doubt that they would be much of a challenge on modern gear. In any event, examples from knife makers are not always applicable to woodworkers.

I am not knocking the merits of vintage steels that have been hammered and laminated. It is just that they are not freely available and there are modern replacements that are superior. The bottom line is that the goal posts have shifted, although the mind set of some has not.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Couple of things, Derek. I used everything I could find in the last 10 years (reasonably, at least). I haven't found O1 to be lacking in edge holding except when using single iron planes or not taking a thick enough shaving for penultimate or earlier work. It doesn't have to be hand hammered or modern, either, just vintage production steel is fine.

There was no shortage of stones to sharpen those razors. Carborundum company was making silicon carbide razor hones in the early 1900s, and they sold a lot of them, but they inevitably didn't get used much. Swaty and american hone and others were making hones with silicone carbide and aluminum oxide in them. The idea that those types of stones are new is not true. The professional barbers preferred coticules and stones from thuringia in germany because they are just better for a razor. They impart a better edge equality. For the same reason, they used genuine linen strops and shell from a horse (instead of cheaper cowhide). Certain things work better. Razoring is not planing, so not all comparisons can be made directly from one to another, just interesting that someone attempted to make tungsten steel (more or less in the direction of high speed steel), which applies to theory reasonably well because tungsten doesn't do too much to create large carbides. But in the end, it's not as nice to use because the quality of the edge is very important, and being able to maintain it easily is, too.

Oilstones weren't commonly sold or used for razors, with the possible exception of cretans and charnleys (something you won't get much of in the US or Australia).

I have two V11 irons. I don't have a situation where I take a whole bunch of smoother shavings in a row (I used to do all of my dimensioning work with machines), so I don't know how much longer V11 lasts than carbon steel in that application, but for someone increasing the shaving size a fair amount for most of the work, and taking fine shavings only for the final pass (which is essentially taking smoother shavings after a try plane - easier yet than even following a machine planer which can steel leave some bow in work), the smoothing is by in a blink of an eye.

I can say for sure (because I used V11 to dimension a plane billet vs. a butcher iron) that the advantage pretty much evaporates when the work is done with a thicker shaving. I'd like to know why that is, but I don't know the answer to that. The V11 is nice steel, for sure. I would choose it over A2, but I wouldn't choose it over a butcher iron. At this point not over a vintage stanley iron, either. My opinion might be different if all I did was smooth.

I haven't tried 3v, it should make a good plane iron.

Chisels and planes don't make good comparisons for steel. That is, what makes a chisel last well doesn't necessarily translate to a plane iron directly, especially if you factor in things like sharpenability and context. Carbon steel is not bettered in chisels at this point. If someone wants to take 1000 feet of thin shavings, you can find modern steels that will do that for longer.

I would like to see a video of your sharpening cycle. After seeing my messy shop online and the fact that I don't dress up when I make videos, nobody can claim that they need more production capability to make a video!! I have (or did until two weeks ago), the same spyderco setup and a loaded strop, but it's lacking compared to a washita and a bare leather strop. George is such a good friend that, of course, I gave that an honest try.

(I do like the CBN, though - of course!)

 

[D_W]

By the way, I'd encourage you to ask Brian Holcombe about what he thinks of the irons in his try and jack planes. When I make those planes, I'm using irons purchased mostly from old sheffield stock, of course, and you never know what you're going to get until you use it.

The iron I gave him was one of the softer irons I've found, not because I chose it on purpose, but because it turned out to be and I wanted him to have a new iron (I have known harder ones that were used). Knowing that he was going to dimension with it, I suggested that he not form too many opinions about it on the stones (because it sharpens like nothing - and your immediate fear is that it won't hold up in hardwoods), but give it a few wear cycles in the plane first and see how it works out.

I'd ask him about it, in the context of work, and how often he has to sharpen it.

I wouldn't put an iron like that in the hands of a beginner. One of the reasons I have no interest in making planes for money, I can put them in the hands of experienced users and know they will be very pleased with them, but I've got no interest in telling a beginner that it's them at this point and not the tool that "doesn't match the advertisement specs in catalogs or popular woodworking reviews".

Safe to say, the wear characteristics of those irons is not the same vs. other harder and more highly alloyed in the try plane as it would be in a smoother. The old iron is superior to a new one for the try plane work.

Brian also surprised me the other day by telling me that he has not taken the jack plane that I made him apart yet (you know he's a prolific user) because it doesn't yet need sharpening. He's probably a more skilled user than me, i never have that kind of patience to wait on the jack plane and sharpen it probably every half dozen or dozen panels or so (or every several large planes if I'm making planes).

You may have noted that after learning this stuff, and working with some japanese carbon steel, too, Brian mentioned that he's looking for something to replace the A2 iron in his lie nielsen smoother. Something carbon steel

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hi David

Brian has been working Walnut, Maple, and White Cypress. With respect to Brian, that is not remotely similar to the hard, abrasive woods I use.

These are not good comparisons, and anyway I has emphasised that steel choice is a case of horses for courses. I do not - and never would - attempt to convince another that their equipment is second rate if it works for them. What works for you would not work for me. I know, because I have build planes with the same irons you have. What works for me is unnecessary for you. You would consider it overkill. I just see it as adequate.

With regard a video, I have thought about one. I may do one if I have the time and the enthusiasm. I am more interested in (furniture and tool) design and handtool techniques. Photo pictorials are easy as I just snap a few as I work. Later, I can put them together as an essay. Sharpening is not a real interest of mine. I've built a few systems over the years, tried a few different grinding machines, but I just want an edge that works in the woods I use. The path to my current system has not been overly complicated. It is efficient, and that is what is important.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

Derek, if I worked the woods you work, I would probably be searching for aussie wood that's a bit less janka hard so that I could dimension it by hand.

I did ask on the aussie forum, and some of the members suggested that there is plenty of wood similar to our medium hardwoods available, and that's probably what I would choose.

The vast majority of woodworkers use wood similar to mine and not what you're using. That includes the beginners who think their chisels don't hold an edge long enough and that spend 5+ minutes sharpening a smoothing plane and flattening stones, etc.

I have worked several cocobolo billets without issue (from rough), though, and work all of the beech billets by hand. Beech isn't as hard as jarrah, but it's not cherry, either. Same with ash and oak, and some hard maple (hard maple doesn't have very nice hand working feel, though, and I'm not really sure what its redeeming qualities is at all other than maybe baseball bats).

I tried mortising hard maple dais and cocobolo plane bodies with an expensive imai timber framing chisel, it didn't hold up well, and like Kees, I went back to a vintage timber framer, which actually held up a little better (three pound hammer may have been the cause, but the imai chisel was 24mm and plenty hard enough, just not tough enough and hisao did the same work with a 6 pound hammer). I don't use a 3 pound hammer at this point, but it was a novel thing to try. At any rate, I found all of the tools that "don't hold up to really hard woods", like vintage american chisels, hold up to it fine with an extra 2 or 3 degrees. The difference in those couple of degrees is instant edge failure vs. mortising an entire plane body with nothing more than routine wear.

I still think all of this stuff about hard irons, etc, is a matter of people not understanding how to work with their tools in most cases. Just me.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

David

Regarding Australian woods ... I live in Perth, the capital city of Western Australia, which lies on the west coast of Australia. It is essentially a desert climate with a strip of forests south of Perth that grow tall in the sun. The timbers on the wetter eastern coast are softer. However the distance from Perth to, say, Sydney, which is the capital city of New South Wales, lies further away than New York to San Diego. Shipping costs make imports prohibitive. Anyway, I prefer to use local timbers, especially those that are reclaimed.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[David C]

In my article CC reminds me that I wrote, "the cap iron was set very close" Old texts often say "set the cap iron as close as possible".

Unfortunately this type of language is pretty vague, and could mean different things to different people.

This is what was so refreshing about the K K video. Real repeatable measurements were used.

My apologies for referring back a couple of pages.

David Charlesworth

 

[Corneel]

Indeed David, for me the actual measurement from the Kato video was enlightening. I was experimenting at that time with the various anti tear out possibilities, having a hard time with a bunch of ash. Bill Tindal first asked us on woodcentral at what distance we set our capirons, before he released the undertitled video. I meassured as good as possible and concluded it was set at 0.4 mm. A very close setiing to my eyes, but in reallity, not close enough.

The answer now is really simple, when you still get tearout, set it closer.

 

[Jacob]

......

The answer now is really simple, when you still get tearout, set it closer.

:lol:
Exactly. And when thats not convenient use a scraper - which is more or less the same as a very close set cap iron with just the smidgin of the edge showing.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

In my article CC reminds me that I wrote, "the cap iron was set very close" Old texts often say "set the cap iron as close as possible".

Unfortunately this type of language is pretty vague, and could mean different things to different people.

This is what was so refreshing about the K K video. Real repeatable measurements were used.

My apologies for referring back a couple of pages.

David Charlesworth

Just to expand a little on this, the article of David's that I quoted earlier in the thread (it's in F&C Issue 91 of August 2004 starting on page 16, if anybody has back copies and wishes to check) had a comparison of four planes, all sharpened and set with a close cap-iron, and planing a piece of ovangkol against the grain, starting with a very thin shaving, and gradually increasing depth of cut. David produced a table of results showing the shaving thickness at which the first signs of tearout were noticed, and shaving thickness at which tearout became considerable. For all four planes tested, the first figure was near enough 0.002" and the second 0.0025".

I think this is sufficient to indicate that the cap-iron was set close enough to have an effect, thus demonstrating that whilst the exact numbers with regard to cap-iron setting distances may have been a revelation to David some years later, the principle of setting the cap-iron close to the cutting edge to control tearout was known to him, and he could put that principle into practice.

Before anybody accuses me of creeping, may I suggest they rummage through the UK Workshop archives, where they will find that DC and I have held different opinions on several subjects. However, I do respect his woodworking knowledge and experience, and his contribution to the craft in passing on that knowledge to others. I don't think it's fair to use his generous acknowledgement of somebody else's contribution to the general pool of knowledge as a stick to beat him with.

On a more general level, I think the way people take in knowledge has changed over the years. At the time that books like 'Planecraft' were written, wood craftsmen would not have responded to cap-iron settings expressed in thous; the craftsman would have been expected to experiment a bit and learn by experience ("No son, you'll have to get it closer than that - get it so as you can just see a tiny glimmer of light at the cutting edge, then if the plane stalls, back it off a gnat's"). Now, we're used to having things quantified, and many people have digital calipers and the like, so an instruction like, "Set the cap-iron about 0.004" from the edge" is actually meaningful to many people. Times change, and we should read the old texts in the context in which they were written.

 

[Jacob]

I think the old chaps would not have had the current obsession with perfect planed-only finish and would have happily resorted to scraper and sand-paper at the earliest.
"Set the cap-iron about 0.004" from the edge" is meaningful but only to people who have modern precision engineered planes and dead flat honing surfaces and jigs - in other words a very recent (fashion) phenomenon.
Nearly all planes were cambered to some extent with little choice over the matter, and something like 1/16" would be about the practical limit.

 

[D_W]

I seriously doubt that a pre-power tool user couldn't keep their cap iron and iron in tune with each other. It's easy. It's also not the case that all craftsmen let their stones get out of flat. You can prevent such a thing just with judicious use, but even if you can't, it doesn't prevent you from having only the mildest camber on an iron.

The 4 thousandth quote didn't do anyone any favors, as it sent all of the unwashed out boasting of their new methods to try to measure 4 thousandths when the reality of the method is simple:

* keep the cap iron and iron closely mated (when honed) by not allowing their iron to get out of relative square with the cap
* set the cap iron the proper distance (which is something you can tell easily by eye with a little bit of experience)

The second bullet point for a beginner is to get a light source, and place the cap iron on the end of the iron and then back it off the slightest amount until you see light. It'll probably be set about right at that.

As far as what would've been done (scraper, sanding, etc), it would've been based on economics, I'd bet. When the market had mostly skilled users, if planing was faster, i'd bet as many surfaces would be finished off the plane as possible.

I'm sure people were using the cap iron with effect, though, or nobody would've paid the considerable extra amount for it.

By the time 1900 came along here (which is where a lot of our industrial-made tools are made, or thereabouts), presumably a large amount of furniture work was done in factories and not of really great quality. Good but not great.

My washita stone came with a hand written note in it that said someone who was a carver in a furniture factory in indianapolis was its owner. The narrow side had been hollowed slightly by sharpening planes or chisels and the face of the stone had several gouge profiles worn into it. The idea of carving in a common furniture factory sounds like relatively uninteresting work, but a local guy wouldn't have been able to keep up with that economically so even 1900 would be difficult to use as a gauge for what skilled users did. The bulk of work was probably done in factories with simplified operations to be able to use unskilled labor.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Just to expand a little on this, the article of David's that I quoted earlier in the thread (it's in F&C Issue 91 of August 2004 starting on page 16, if anybody has back copies and wishes to check) had a comparison of four planes, all sharpened and set with a close cap-iron, and planing a piece of ovangkol against the grain, starting with a very thin shaving, and gradually increasing depth of cut. David produced a table of results showing the shaving thickness at which the first signs of tearout were noticed, and shaving thickness at which tearout became considerable. For all four planes tested, the first figure was near enough 0.002" and the second 0.0025".

I think this is sufficient to indicate that the cap-iron was set close enough to have an effect, thus demonstrating that whilst the exact numbers with regard to cap-iron setting distances may have been a revelation to David some years later, the principle of setting the cap-iron close to the cutting edge to control tearout was known to him, and he could put that principle into practice.

All this demonstrates is that a thin shaving (<0.002") is sufficient to minimise tearout. It says nothing about the chipbreaker. Indeed, if tearout began to increase with shaving thickness, then there it did not have an effect on tearout, that is, was not set close enough to make a difference. There is "close" and "close enough".

This was the era of gossamer shavings. They were the mark of a well set plane. Still are. However, now thicker shavings without tearout are desired, and a plane needs to be able to do this as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek