Finish straight on to planed surface?

[woodbrains]

I think finishing from the plane is something that's never been suggested done by anyone other than hobbyists and the occasional period woodworker (there is someone in the states who does it commercially).

The overwhelming majority if commercial answers I've seen rely on safety (defined as not having to do something over) and uniformity.

It's interesting to me as a hobbyist because I'm sensitized to the dust of my favorite wood, but sensitivity is not so bad yet that I can't plane it. If I sand, and dust extraction isn't very good (so sanding anything by hand without downdraft would count here), I get symptoms like bronchitis for a while and need to use an inhaler.

Planing or scraping don't cause that.

Hello,

I suppose it depends on what you mean by commercially. For a one off piece maker, who does expensive work and who wants to enjoy working tools rather than electric sanders and extractors, then hand planes are actually very efficient. Commercial makers doing volume work and to a price, power sanding is effective, as enjoyment tends to be secondary to breaking stuff out without thinking, and so some degree without skill. Most makers I know do a combination of both, depending on what the job is and the mood that individual is in at the time. If the work is finish ready from the tool, it is pointless sanding. If a woodworker can plane to a finish, then he has the choice to do so or not, which is nice. I would hate to have to rely on sanding every time I made something. I try to get as close to a finish with planes, rather than aim to get finish ready. Scraping and sanding is minimised if I start with this idea. That said, I was not commercially successful. I might add not because of my working wood with planes!

Mike.

 

[Zeddedhed]

Not sure I agree with Zedhead about a light sand as a key for glue. Would sanding not block the pores in the grain when a sharp plane should leave them open allowing penetration of the glue? Just speculation but have glued straight from the plane on most occasions without problems.

I don't always agree with me either. I can't even be sure if I did read that Krenov statement somewhere or if I dreamt it. I know that when I've edge jointed boards that are shiny and burnished off the plane they are much more slip when rubbed.

If I lightly sand the edges and then rub joint the boards they get very sticky very quick.

 

[JimB]

Hide glue and luthiers. The glued joints are planed then glued. They have history on their side. :wink:

 

[Peter Sefton]

Hide glue and luthiers. The glued joints are planed then glued. They have history on their side. :wink:

Are that old china, history and experience never to be sneered at!

Cheers Peter

 

[Droogs]

I believe that as hide glue joints take advantage of both mechanical and chemicl bonding, the following probably occurs. With regard to how it would behave with being applied to the joint surface straight from the plane, i think that the fact it contains water and is applied "hot" would help raise the grain of any surface wether it had been burnished by the plane sole or not and allow a mechanical bond to occur, even at the miro level and of coarse the chemical bonding of protiens would occur anyway

droogs

 

[Trafalgar]

Fine Woodworking several years ago laid to rest the canard that somebody could actually tell whether or not a surface had been planed or sanded after the finish went on, this with respect to grain clarity and not tool marks left behind. We all sputtered and bitched when the article came out but the truth of the matter is that they're right. It's good, too, because every article of woodworking is not a flat surface susceptible to a No. 4.

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

Charles, is that supposed to read nobody

 

[Jacob]

Fine Woodworking several years ago laid to rest the canard that somebody could actually tell whether or not a surface had been planed or sanded after the finish went on, this with respect to grain clarity and not tool marks left behind. We all sputtered and bitched when the article came out but the truth of the matter is that they're right. It's good, too, because every article of woodworking is not a flat surface susceptible to a No. 4.

I don't know what the magazine said but you can certainly tell a planed from a sanded surface. If in doubt shine a torch across. It's impossible to plane without leaving plane marks - ideally the very shallow scoops of finely cambered smoother, barely visible to the naked eye.

 

[ED65]

Planes being the last thing to touch the work, somebody correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the norm with sashimono woodworking? I've never watched a piece completed from planing the stock to shape to assembly to finish application so I may have missed if they do any sanding but I was under the impression they use the planed surface as the finished surface, isn't it even called "kanna finish"?

 

[ED65]

Bingo. It's like the argument against a hollow grind. We never actually see chisels that broke because they were hollow ground.

Yes we do

I was under the impression this was almost entirely a theoretical issue Jacob, not a real-world issue of any consequence. So many woodworkers have honed a secondary or microbevel on bevels formed by the grinder since benchtop grinders because affordable, it can't be at all commonplace.

Yes failures can occur, but that's true of both flat and convex bevels too, e.g. when used to lever out big chips in hardwoods.

You can't really plane a surface (wider than the plane) unless the plane is cambered, or you end up with tramlines.

What about rounding off the corners? That was the norm for smoothers by my count for about the last 200 years and from my reading I don't think it was a given that you'd need to scrape after the smoothing plane was used, but it must be acknowledged that these books aren't famous for being that comprehensive (compare with the vagaries on the setting of the cap iron).

It's impossible to plane without leaving plane marks -

Any plane, any user?

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Using a smoother to plane to a finish ready board, requires very thin shavings. In fact in hard wood, they are not ribbony shavings at all, but wooly, crumpled up fluff. Now 'shavings' this thin require a camber on the iron of such an imperceptible amount, that any scallops to the surface are also imperceptible in normal viewing. I suppose if you are going to look at every surface in a raking light, then you might see evidence of them, but that is not reasonable. The camber on the iron must be very slight, as we want to take as near to a full width shaving as possible, and a plane set for a very fine finish shaving must have a very slight camber if we are to take a wide shaving.

As for telling whether a board has been finish planed over sanded, I think it can be done, unless we are going to waste time sanding to super fine grits. Stopping at 180-220 and I definitely can tell. However, after a finish is applied it is not possible, which is the practical test.

Mike.

 

[ED65]

However, after a finish is applied it is not possible...

I think that was the actual disagreement, that the difference could be seen after a film finish had been applied.

 

[bench_monkey]

If I'm going to polish or treat a surface I'll use a sanding block and 240. For a thicker external finish I'll random orbital with 240. I can't mentally bring myself to treat an un-sanded surface


Sent from my Potato using Tapatalk

 

[D_W]

However, after a finish is applied it is not possible...

I think that was the actual disagreement, that the difference could be seen after a film finish had been applied.

I wouldn't be surprised if the answer isn't quite as simple as yes or no. It may depend on wood, finish, etc, but who is going to go to the trouble?

The context of that discussion is often whether or not a customer will care, and the answer to that is probably no.

I would hate to sand my planes. They are the only thing I've ever sold for an appreciable amount of money (that being the cost of materials in them, which is still more than what a good older plane costs). I wouldn't expect someone to pay me to make planes if I had to sand the surface on my own planes and dull some of the transition areas that are crisp.

 

[Trafalgar]

Here you go:

Membership required.

Sand, Scrape, or Plane?
In search of the best way to prepare wood for finishing

by Ari Tuckman

Few woodworkers enjoy the noise and dust of power sanding, but most recognize it as an easy way to get boards uniformly smooth. Others swear by the card scraper, which with practice will produce thin curls of wood and a flawless board. Conventional wisdom says hand-planing is the best method of surface preparation, though it's difficult to achieve perfection that way. When all is said and done, does it really matter how a board was prepared after the surface has been finished? Woodworker Ari Tuckman wanted to find out, so he devised a test. Using two different types of wood, he sanded, scraped, or planed identical boards and sent them to be judged by Fine Woodworking editors before and after finishing. The results may surprise you.

Read more: http://www.finewoodworking.com/how-to/a ... z3u6jK3a4D
Follow us: @fwmagazine on Twitter | finewoodworkingmagazine on Facebook

 

[Trafalgar]

'Nother one. From a fairly well-known guy in the US:

Surface Prep: Why Sanding Isn't Enough
Three-step process leaves a flawless surface for finishing

by Philip C. Lowe http://furnituremakingclasses.com/gener ... ty-gallery

Jointer and planer knives go dull after just a few board feet, heating the surface of your wood and pounding it into compressed fibers. In this article, Philip C. Lowe shows how to plane, scrape, and sand your project by hand to reveal the best surface of the wood and prepare it for a finish. You’ll learn tips for success on using handplanes, cabinet scrapers, wide card scrapers, and sandpaper.

From Fine Woodworking #152

Surface Prep: Why Sanding Isn't Enough
View as PDF

requires Adobe Reader
From Fine Woodworking #152, pp. 52 December 1 2001

Read more: http://www.finewoodworking.com/how-to/a ... z3u6jv4F33
Follow us: @fwmagazine on Twitter | finewoodworkingmagazine on Facebook

 

[Trafalgar]

An fairly old classic (by today's instantaneous internet standard):

Working Highly Figured Wood
Mix hand-tool and machine methods for tearout-free surfaces

by Peter Tischler http://thestrawshop.com/peter-tischler/

Until Peter Tischler became familiar with the underlying structure and reasons behind beautiful grain and figure, he had difficulties working the surfaces of such solid woods. In this comprehensive article, he starts by defining grain and figure, and then he explains how to plane, scrape, and sand and harden the wood by hand and by machine. Side information explains how to block-plane figured wood without tearout, and another side article addresses smoothing knots and filling gaps. Additional photos and explanations show how different approaches work for different figures.

From Fine Woodworking #105

Working Highly Figured Wood
View as PDF

requires Adobe Reader
From Fine Woodworking #105, pp. 44 April 1 1994

Read more: http://www.finewoodworking.com/how-to/a ... z3u6kSpt9L
Follow us: @fwmagazine on Twitter | finewoodworkingmagazine on Facebook

 

[Trafalgar]

Garrett Hack on Scrapers:

http://www.finewoodworking.com/tool-gui ... apers.aspx

A pretty talented guy: http://garretthack.com/

 

[Trafalgar]

Don't let somebody (weekend warriors, etc.) make you believe that a full-time professional furnituremaker making pieces on a one-off basis for a discriminating clientele is somehow compromising the process out of economic necessity by scraping and/or and sanding. That's that the last place these guys are looking to save time.

Not much here could be worked straight off the plane due to the shapes of the parts:

http://furnituremasters.org/

Selling prices of the work: http://www.finewoodworking.com/woodwork ... ction.aspx

 

[custard]

Not much here could be worked straight off the plane due to the shapes of the parts:

Very good point.

I'm currently working on a desk and chair in heavily rippled Black Walnut.

As you'd expect given the figuring the Walnut is prone to tearing out. But with a lot more shaping to be done on the chair it would be impossible to finish from a plane, and here's the thing, both the desk and the chair obviously need to be finished by the same method in order to look cohesive. This is a very typical situation, you only need one significant curved or shaped element in a piece to render plane finishing impractical. By and large independent makers can't make a living producing simple rectilinear designs (and probably wouldn't want to either) so need a finishing process that can handle curved and shaped surfaces.