How Necessary is a Specialised Scrub Plane?

[Andy Kev.]

It's interesting that you mention planing along the wood with a jack. As luck would have it, I tried precisely that once out of interest. The wood was a fairly normal piece of American Poplar, cupped and with a bit of wind. I first planed diagonally the two high corners to get them down a bit and then planed along and worked inward from the two high edges towards the middle, using what I suppose you have to call the 3-2-1 method: a pass on each outside edge, then once each to the inside of them and once more on the inside of them with the lowest point - the middle - being untouched. Then just two passes on each edge followed by just one inside of each of them, then a final pass on each edge. The blade was only lightly cambered and was set for a fairly light to medium cut.

That got it to something approaching flattish and then it was a matter of working diagonally along the board until it was flat enough for working along the length. Obviously straight edges and winding sticks were consulted frequently. It worked.

 

[Jacob]

..... have since found that texts from the early 1800s and before describe no short planes with really coarse mouths for this work (because it's less productive).

Adze/axe much more in use for rough work?

If you search for Nicholson's "mechanic's companion",....No short planes.

But there are now

.....
* get a jack plane. use it for a while, set it up optimally for what you do in terms of rough work
* work some volume of wood from rough to finish with a jack plane, and then do the same with your scrub plane. Time it and see both how you feel in comparison and how long it takes

You'll be done faster starting with the jack plane every time. It requires getting comfortable with using the jack plane first - as in, the popular thing in the internet will be to buy one, use it for 10 minutes against something used for 3 years and then declare it not as good. That's not going to help you.

What I found (see photos earlier) was simply that the scrub was much faster than a jack, for that sort of work. In fact a jack would hardly touch the rough surface and just clip the high points. Also would get blunt very quickly - the scrub cuts deep into the clean wood underneath avoiding nearly all the grit etc. n.b. planing across the grain is fundamentally less work because the shavings roll more easily.
Basically the deeper and narrower a cut the more material you can remove, for a given effort.

 

[D_W]

Adze/axe much more in use for rough work?
But there are nowWhat I found (see photos earlier) was simply that the scrub was much faster than a jack, for that sort of work. In fact a jack would hardly touch the rough surface and just clip the high points. Also would get blunt very quickly - the scrub cuts deep into the clean wood underneath avoiding nearly all the grit etc. n.b. planing across the grain is fundamentally less work because the shavings roll more easily.
Basically the deeper and narrower a cut the more material you can remove, for a given effort.

There's a point to this that you're ignoring, Jacob. The nicholson text was written when it would have been important to do this efficiently. All of the short planes aside from the two hander continentals were developed by a company specializing in site work and specifying that the short narrow plane was for site work. It's more important that it fit in a tool box and not change with the weather with disuse because it may not be used often.

The lack of the short planes along with the technique that nicholson mentions (instead of traversing the work) is important as it reduces effort and cuts time. You can use a coarse jack plane and go straight to a thickness planer (it may never be on some peoples' radar to dimension entirely by hand, but it's very practical to not have a jointer and use a jack plane. It removes wood with less effort, more accuracy and can fit better even in a power tool rotation.

It's so efficient that sometimes when I get full-on into the joinery part of a case, I get resentful that the ease of dimensioning by hand has to wait until the next project. With a short narrow plane, you're instead left with a tool that increases effort due to lack of controlled rhythm and you have to do a bunch of checking to make sure you're not creating hollow areas - something you don't really need to do with a jack.

As per the instructions of arm length strokes, I started (and before reading that as someone else pointed me to it) liking just initial high points and then walking the jack up and down a board so as not to tire in the arms. I was wrong about it, just as anyone here who thinks a scrub is better for stock removal than a wooden jack is off due to poor supposition. I went to the method that nicholson describes and counted time and it's far more efficient. And thus sold my scrub planes.

A lot of people get into this hobby believing that the "jack plane is the jack of all trades". It's a stupid thought, but it sounds witty, I guess.

It's just an instance of if you want to learn to do something well, then first turn to the people who had to do it well and see what they did. Then, after that, you can see if there's improvement.

All of the little nuances like this are the difference between stabbing around and doing some work by hand from time to time (all the way down even to using a metal jack instead of a wooden jack - the effort level is so far different that anyone who spends time with a wooden jack will then use a metal jack and say "ew, I just can't keep wax on it fast enough"), vs. becoming efficient and choosing to do the work by hand, accurately. I may be incompetent with power tools (That's probably true), but I can thickness a board to a mark by hand and have no variation greater than 5 thousandths just as a matter of routine. It is the same as taking a brisk walk, and I'd hate to go back to ideas that became popular post-nicholson when nobody was actually doing the work.

If a short plane was the way to go, it would've been in nicholson as such solely due to economics.

 

[Jacob]

We talking at cross purposes here: I don't use it for thicknessing as such - I use it for scrubbing which for me means cleaning up some old rubbish, which can then be thicknessed, with a jack, or power thicknesser, without wrecking the blades.
It's good on old joists as per above, or heavily painted stuff which will blunt a normal jack very quickly.
It's also very quick and easy, controlled and rhythmic, a pleasure to use!
I guess another use for it would be cleaning up half lap joints in log buildings, where you might use an axe or an adze, and I wonder if this is why it was known in USA and N Europe where timber buildings more common than UK , where it was hardly known at all, until Lie Nielsen brought out a retro version. They are trying to pass it off as an essential but I don't think it is - it's highly specialised with very limited use.
n.b. to make it even more efficient I opened the mouth a bit more on my ECE woody.
Its only for rough cuts so a nail chip in the edge doesn't matter and it's very easy to sharpen - you scoop (ed: and twist) it along a medium oil stone sideways from one end to the other as though trying to put a sharp edge on the front end of a spoon.
LN do a sharpening vid which is slightly hilarious as he clearly doesn't have the faintest idea - they don't half struggle if they can't buy a honing gadget to fit!

 

[D_W]

These two things are the same - thicknessing and spot scrubbing. If spot scrubbing is done below a flatness level or relatively not flat locally, it doesn't make sense as you've created a cavity doing it.

The average hobbyist isn't doing timberframing, restoring timberframing or working out of a tool box.

The sharpening method you describe is true across jack planes, but nicholson's text is also true - you set the curvature of the edge based on what the material will allow (I would use the term brisk walk - you set it to whatever is equivalent to a brisk walk - not a relaxed walk or 25% effort, but something like 70%. Someone working a little longer will eventually get toward sawing and planing with both arms. This sounds like witchcraft to someone new to the work, but it's just sensible work so that you can do it for a while. Just because it works for thicknessing much better and is more efficient doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used to do exactly what I described above - trim off high spots so that you can run a board through a thicknesser without having to do a full face joint (which is a waste of time if you're working on something you really don't want to do).

A scrub plane won't be able to do that.

My point with all of this is that there's no reason to do this more than once. It does take getting through some hard headedness and nonsense about "people back then were simple minded and punished themselves for no reason, we're smarter now and can think of something that works better - like CPM121 rex plane blades at 68 hardness.

I went through the hard headedness twice - once in making tools (ooh, I just want to make some tools, which results in not using said tools) and second then in looking for modern planes and then reading larry williams' thoughts on the other end to determine what to do working wood by hand. I don't think larry has ever worked much rough lumber by hand to finish for cabinet work - and few people buying a stanley 5 for site work could've afforded to do much of it by hand vs. ordering material with the rough work generally done industrially. 1775 to the mid 1800s was probably closer to what we would do in our own shops with wood that is not first growth and absolutely perfectly straight.

I was able again this year to get my hands on one of the planes that they use at CW (not larry's but one made in the toolworking shop there - single iron with a blacksmithed iron). It's pretty, would look great for someone in costume. I'd have to hire someone part time to search for wood perfect enough to use it. It's horrid in typical FAS cherry (and probably would've been used on old growth pine that wasn't totally dry yet until the very final work was to be done).

In this case, doing it better costs less, too. How much does a mathieson jack plane cost on the ground in the UK? I got one on ebay for $17 with a good double iron with most of its life left and no broken handle or anything. The one barrier to entry for someone else may be getting the fit right to use it - I offer to do this for people no charge here in the states if they're willing to mail a plane, but no clue who would do it well over there. The comment when someone gets their plane back is usually "i can't believe how well it works in really thin shavings and really heavy shavings - it just works". Of course it does. I've never refit a jack plane for someone and then seen them use a scrub plane again.

 

[D_W]

It's interesting that you mention planing along the wood with a jack. As luck would have it, I tried precisely that once out of interest. The wood was a fairly normal piece of American Poplar, cupped and with a bit of wind. I first planed diagonally the two high corners to get them down a bit and then planed along and worked inward from the two high edges towards the middle, using what I suppose you have to call the 3-2-1 method: a pass on each outside edge, then once each to the inside of them and once more on the inside of them with the lowest point - the middle - being untouched. Then just two passes on each edge followed by just one inside of each of them, then a final pass on each edge. The blade was only lightly cambered and was set for a fairly light to medium cut.

That got it to something approaching flattish and then it was a matter of working diagonally along the board until it was flat enough for working along the length. Obviously straight edges and winding sticks were consulted frequently. It worked.

Yes on the method. A few more times and the diagonal stuff goes by the wayside because it keeps the plane in a continuous cut less to be working across scallops. You'll just see the high corners and work them off with through shavings. If you can keep the plane sort of "loaded" in a continuous shaving all in the same direction vs. working the tips off of wood, it'll go longer between sharpenings (more feet of wood worked) and you'll be able to feel like you're working 25% less fast but if you put a watch against what you're getting done, you get about twice as much done.

The only thing you have to put up with is when you're engaged and you've got that warm feeling of muscles engaged, people will say "it looks like you're taking it easy". One of my coworkers is a stellar golfer (plus handicap). He hits the ball on the short end of a pga tour pro, which is 75 yards beyond the average person, no matter how many people think they hit a ball 300+ yards. When he swings, the only indication of the speed other than the ball flight is the sound. Everyone tells him "you swing so easy and hit it so far". I doubt it feels like a casual walk to him. planing all in one direction is kind of like that - the plane is fully engaged in the cut, so it feels like more work than it looks like .Everything the plane does then is automatically aligned with the try plane so follow-on work is really easy and safe.

I don't have a scrub plane, or I'd give a scrub and my jack plane a whirl for 10 minutes each on separate days and weigh the shavings. That usually ends the debate. I used to also make fun of things like that (everyone probably does at the outset). I saw someone who is no longer on the forums talk about trying things and measuring them and measuring time when you're taking up a new skill. Drastic differences show up. A simple one is when I tested irons. I thought I could make an O1 iron that would match V11 if it was good quality and the temper was ideal. It felt like it in real work.

V11 worked twice as long in clean wood - my brain just didn't have a chance to plane continuously with one right after the other and compare real data. Double the planing corresponded with double the work completed (double the strokes on a sharpening stone, though, too, for each session).

 

[Jacob]

These two things are the same - thicknessing and spot scrubbing. ......

I'm not doing either - I'm just scrubbing the surfaces clean.

 

[D_W]

I'm not doing either - I'm just scrubbing the surfaces clean.

What you're describing is literally jack plane work. Or trying plane work if the wood is nice enough not to need a jack plane. Forum wisdom here in the states described the need for something to "Scrub" (figuratively wash?) the surface off of old wood, as if the plane had to be a different shape than what would do the same on clean wood (and the different shape would be less efficient and more destructive).

I've learned over time that there's not really anyone alive who has done this stuff professionally and can provide good advice for someone who actually wants to work by hand as the thickness planer eliminated the need for anyone to really learn any of it.

 

[Jelly]

Yes thats another use for the scrub, where earlier generations might have used an adze or even just the axe.

I was about to say that if you have serious material removal to do by hand an axe and adze are superior to the scrub plane...

It takes a lot longer to develop finesse and control with them compared to a scrub plane though, but once you get your hand in, great tools.

 

[jackal]

I quite like the texture from an adze and the scrub. I just made my own from an old Rapier N04.

 

[Jacob]

What you're describing is literally jack plane work. Or trying plane work if the wood is nice enough not to need a jack plane. Forum wisdom here in the states described the need for something to "Scrub" (figuratively wash?) the surface off of old wood, as if the plane had to be a different shape than what would do the same on clean wood (and the different shape would be less efficient and more destructive).

Yes but not "figuratively wash" more "literally scrub" off a defective surface. And as it happens also highly efficient in terms of material removed but not in quality of finish

there's not really anyone alive who has done this stuff professionally and can provide good advice for someone who actually wants to work by hand as the thickness planer eliminated the need for anyone to really learn any of it.

I've learned over time that you can't use a thickness planer on recycled wood as it contains nails, screws, grit etc.

 

[TRITON]

Bah HUMBUG .... Bit of broken clam shell is all you need.

 

[D_W]

I quite like the texture from an adze and the scrub. I just made my own from an old Rapier N04.

Yessir, on anything that's not regular shaped too hard or too hard and dry. The adze or hatchet and draw knife are fairly essential for some things, at least to do them efficiently.

 

[D_W]

Yes but not "figuratively wash" more "literally scrub" off a defective surface. And as it happens also highly efficient in terms of material removed but not in quality of finishI've learned over time that you can't use a thickness planer on recycled wood as it contains nails, screws, grit etc.

I'm assuming that you may be talking around this on purpose. The bottom line is that there's nothing a scrub plane does better than a jack plane, but fit in a tool box. In game theory, there's a useful term that guides why things happened historically. Why did nicholson's era not have a scrub when they were working entirely by hand in most places? Because it does nothing better than a jack, and anything that it might (nothing that I've found), those other things would be the domain of a hatchet, a large gouge, an adze or a draw knife).

Stanley marketed one to narrow doors, probably because the skilled group of individuals who could use a jack and drawknife or adze was gone.

Game theory is easy to prove - run a simulation, the dominant strategy shows to be better. Since the point of playing a game is at least not to lose, something like this doesn't have legs like this discussion does.

Except in the case where someone wants to play a game without being very good at it.

It doesn't get through to too many people even on forums, I guess. I quite often talk about what I've figured out sharpening tools, observing what comes in where someone was using a various guru's method, but the only people I can get through to are the ones who are working seriously (and who don't have too much of an ego to learn something new).

i'd be willing to bet that over time, anyone looking for results and following on after initial rough work will flatten the radius on their "scrub" plane to about what one would do with a jack. They'll use a plane that has less directional ability in every direction, takes more effort to use and leaves more work to follow it. I guess under the assumption that a jack plane shouldn't have so much camber because a similar sized stanley plane is called a jack and people assume that somehow means a "do all", or stranger yet, "those planes should be used as super smoothers" (it's odd that people working sunup to sundown would operate in such a suboptimal way.....of course, they didn't).

 

[Jacob]

.......i'd be willing to bet that over time, anyone looking for results and following on after initial rough work will flatten the radius on their "scrub" plane to about what one would do with a jack. .....

No of course not. I'll carry on using my scrub as described and then if I need a flatter radius I'll pick up a different plane!
Scrub would be no use for door hanging. I've always used a 5 1/2 jack and a 220 block for doors, plus occasional use of a paring chisel.
Scrubs are for scrubbing. There's a clue in the name! It's much faster than a jack but very rough finish.
PS no Nicholson involved, or any other guru, this is what I found out for myself.

 

[Nigel Burden]

Paul Sellers said that they used to be called "Roughing Planes" before the term "Scrub,"

Nigel.

 

[Jacob]

Paul Sellers said that they used to be called "Roughing Planes" before the term "Scrub,"

Nigel.

I'd never heard the word at all before LN introduced their version. And it doesn't feature in any of the old books I've got. "Roughing" plane does, and "Bismarck" plane looks like the same thing

 

[samhay]

I have an improvised scrub plane that I use in the same way as Jacob. I have tried the same work with a jack plane (5.1/2) and for me the scrub plane is quicker. I don't have a particularly radical camber on my jack plane though.

I found the following to be interesting while thinking about the historical aspects of the discussion:
https://literaryworkshop.wordpress....-the-stanley-40-scrub-plane-a-hypothesis/amp/

 

[Jacob]

I have an improvised scrub plane that I use in the same way as Jacob. I have tried the same work with a jack plane (5.1/2) and for me the scrub plane is quicker. I don't have a particularly radical camber on my jack plane though.

I found the following to be interesting while thinking about the historical aspects of the discussion:
https://literaryworkshop.wordpress....-the-stanley-40-scrub-plane-a-hypothesis/amp/

Trimming the edge of thick boards figures. I used to scribe boards (skirtings, shelves, uneven walls/floors etc) with an axe first and then a block plane, before I'd heard of the scrub.

 

[samhay]

My scrub plane is a very crude thing and works much better across grain than with it. That said, I can see how a more refined scrub plane could make quite work of this sort of carpentry.