How to store Handplanes?

[Jacob]

David C, I'm completely in agreement with you. I wish the mods would step in and put an end to his presence here.

No worries, I'm not likely to respond to very many topics like this, but I push the topic some not to troll people, but to actually get people up to try a few things and see if they might learn something new.

If you, at any point, are thinking about getting toward dimensioning wood by hand from rough, viewed through a clear lens, you'll find some value in the things I mention. If not, then probably not.

There's a lot of talk on forums about what show to go to to get the next thing, or what plane follows what machine planer, etc, but there just really isn't much discussion about discarding power tools and how that changes desirable characteristics of hand tools.

We were taught to do all by hand and I did a lot by hand almost entirely when I started trying to earn a living. I still do it where I have to - e.g. some long newel posts recently -impossible through the machine easiest to do two faces by hand and the other two through the thicknesser.
Yes it does give you a different perspective which is still useful even when your planing is only finishing after machining.

 

[D_W]

David C - I've got an idea for an "experiment" to illustrate one of the points I make, but it may take someone in better shape than either of us.

Locate a vintage stanley iron (one of the oil hardening era, even better if it's laminated). Choose a modern iron of choice - A2 or O1, whatever hardness you want.

Instead of testing a plane with thin shavings, take both and find a subject wood (something that you would typically plane). Sharpen both irons identically, and then take shavings until the iron you're using will no longer stay in the cut without downpressure from you (set the double iron for this, it'll probably be necessary to get continuous shavings at that thickness if the wood isn't perfect).

Check every 50th shaving or so to make sure they are still 5 thousandths. And wax the plane, because once you get tired, it's easy to confuse a friction situation with a metal plane you're starting to lean on with dullness - a rewax will refresh what feels like a situation of "too dull" several times, before the plane iron is actually too dull.

Total the amount of work done, and compare that with your 3 to 1 hypothesized amount above.

I think you will find that first, the stanley plane iron will wear you out (or whoever does it) before it's dull, and 2, the gap that exists with the two irons with 1 thousandth shavings (certainly an abrasion resistant steel will easily win this contest with 1 thousandth shavings) will not be as wide with shavings that are 5 thousandths, a more typical average worked shaving for someone doing more than smoothing.

(Note, I have done this with specified panel areas - seeing how much panel I could get done before needing to resharpen because the iron is just too much of a bear to keep in the cut. The double iron can't be discounted here, because it causes the plane to stay in the cut longer, and it causes the shaving to remain continuous and free of significant tearout - also, thus staying in the cut).

I have found that the gap between the abrasion resistant hard irons and the older style irons that favor an oilstone and a strop narrows quite a lot when the shaving thickness is increased. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else has found that to be true, too. But it will not be a physically easy test.

I don't favor experiments that use things like MDF to accelerate wear, because they don't very well simulate what happens in wood that's not MDF (as in, testing disparities vs. bench use make the results inaccurate if the end goal is not just to plane more MDF).

 

[D_W]

Yes it does give you a different perspective which is still useful even when your planing is only finishing after machining.

It literally allows you to learn to finish plane faster but without loss in results. I wouldn't have ever believed that if I read it on a forum, but not everything is proven in forum posts.

And from time to time, even a power tool user will have a small part that needs to be changed dimensionally a little bit, and it will be exceedingly useful there.

 

[G S Haydon]

I have no intention of trying to mediate this, if it sounds that way I'll say sorry now!

There are differences pointed out and I can't help thinking that we're coming at this from different angles. I've had the pleasure of meeting with David C and respect him greatly. Derek, I've exchanged messages with and really enjoy his take on woodworking. In addition CC & Jacob, I really enjoy and benefit from your experience.

My thoughts are that D_W is onto something when we talk about taking rough sawn wood to finish quality by hand. Broadly for most projects I have become to appreciate that a wooden jack & try with a coffin or #4 Stanley to smooth is a wonderful, proven and quick process. Do modern versions offer a quantum leap when used in this context? The only way to decide would be to have someone working from the rough sawn to finish with two sets of planes, heavy metal planes or wooden versions. They could then decide. This is a very specific context that, hand on heart I don't think many of us do. I'm moving further in that direction, in part, thanks to the advise from D_W and from looking at what people were using at the time.

This should not mean that people feel they have to work that way, why should they? Enjoy whatever makes you feel good.

David often references a chap called George Wilson, you can watch him working here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K48FezB ... n1jiXZiwh6 . I'm personally love the content, due to it's colonial setting it's likely to be similar to rural settings in the UK, not totally unlike Devon, my home . When people who have worked in this way give advise I listen because it's in line with what I'm very interested in.

I think I'm rambling now but D_W is blunt but I would resist asking to lock the thread. If it inspires a couple folks to try out wooden planes and find out for themselves then that's reason enough to keep the thread open. If anyone needs help trying to get the best from their planes I think you'll find him very helpful and knowledgeable.

 

[MIGNAL]

A very large part of my WW'ing is making Guitars. It's now pretty common for professional makers to employ the use of a thickness sander. I can't be doing with the noise of the machine + the noise of it's dust extractor. Over the years I've probably spent months trying to find a method of thicknessing hardwood (using a hand plane) as efficiently as possible. The answer really wasn't very difficult at all. Plane across the grain with a heavily cambered blade, fairly heavy cuts. A small wooden Jack proved to be the absolute ideal. Nothing remotely comes close to being as efficient, unless you have a very small amount of wood to plane. The last little bit (the smoothing) is really just a fraction of the work. The important bit is removing material, in a relatively tear out free manner, quickly. I haven't used a metal plane for this purpose in years.

 

[D_W]

I have no intention of trying to mediate this, if it sounds that way I'll say sorry now!

There are differences pointed out and I can't help thinking that we're coming at this from different angles. I've had the pleasure of meeting with David C and respect him greatly. Derek, I've exchanged messages with and really enjoy his take on woodworking. In addition CC & Jacob, I really enjoy and benefit from your experience.

My thoughts are that D_W is onto something when we talk about taking rough sawn wood to finish quality by hand. Broadly for most projects I have become to appreciate that a wooden jack & try with a coffin or #4 Stanley to smooth is a wonderful, proven and quick process. Do modern versions offer a quantum leap when used in this context? The only way to decide would be to have someone working from the rough sawn to finish with two sets of planes, heavy metal planes or wooden versions. They could then decide. This is a very specific context that, hand on heart I don't think many of us do. I'm moving further in that direction, in part, thanks to the advise from D_W and from looking at what people were using at the time.

This should not mean that people feel they have to work that way, why should they? Enjoy whatever makes you feel good.

David often references a chap called George Wilson, you can watch him working here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K48FezB ... n1jiXZiwh6 . I'm personally love the content, due to it's colonial setting it's likely to be similar to rural settings in the UK, not totally unlike Devon, my home . When people who have worked in this way give advise I listen because it's in line with what I'm very interested in.

I think I'm rambling now but D_W is blunt but I would resist asking to lock the thread. If it inspires a couple folks to try out wooden planes and find out for themselves then that's reason enough to keep the thread open. If anyone needs help trying to get the best from their planes I think you'll find him very helpful and knowledgeable.

Thank you graham. I talk to george offline a lot. One of the things I couldn't reconcile with several years ago was when he said irons perform better when they're just barely fileable by a good file. That's probably about 58 hardness. The only thing I haven't been able to learn from George is double iron planes, because George wasn't allowed to use them at Williamsburg, the curators didn't believe they were common enough and everyone had to use single iron planes because of it.

It took a more full use of the planes to understand why george (who is as fine of a toolmaker as anyone in the world) would say that he likes irons softer than most of the magazines and bloggers do. I could mention the other trades he's mastered, it'd take several lines.

It took using those irons with oilstones to find out that I was completely wrong about oilstones being outdated, and it took learning to use the cap iron to make all of it come together.

Jacob puts it perfectly, too, that there are things you learn when you're forced to use planes to that level that carry through when you use machines for rough work.

In any discussion, I can immediately spot the people who have done a significant amount of dimensioning by hand, they'll have different priorities. And, of course, that's who I have stuffed my planes to because I've not got a whole lot of interest in spending 10-15 hours to make a jack or try plane for someone who wants a long metal smoother with an adjuster. I've been there, that's where I started.

 

[D_W]

A very large part of my WW'ing is making Guitars. It's now pretty common for professional makers to employ the use of a thickness sander. I can't be doing with the noise of the machine + the noise of it's dust extractor. Over the years I've probably spent months trying to find a method of thicknessing hardwood (using a hand plane) as efficiently as possible. The answer really wasn't very difficult at all. Plane across the grain with a heavily cambered blade, fairly heavy cuts. A small wooden Jack proved to be the absolute ideal. Nothing remotely comes close to being as efficient, unless you have a very small amount of wood to plane. The last little bit (the smoothing) is really just a fraction of the work. The important bit is removing material, in a relatively tear out free manner, quickly. I haven't used a metal plane for this purpose in years.

Wonderfully said.

 

[Trafalgar]

May I summarize?

1. Bailey pattern planes and well-executed copies can actually be used to make furniture. Doing so predates Kato & Kawai, "George," and "Warren."
2. Boutique hard(er) steel replacement cutters like Hock extend the time between honings and work at least as well as the originals from the better vintage years.
3. If one uses planes a lot (not cycling through a perpetually rolling inventory of dozens of them) then at some point the need to obtain a replacement cutter is fairly likely. See no. 2.
4. Some people replace cutters of dubious vintage right off the reel. They weren't all of the same quality through the years, may be pitted, or have had their temper drawn by a previous, ham-fisted owner. Maybe all of these.

 

[D_W]

May I summarize?

1. Bailey pattern planes and well-executed copies can actually be used to make furniture. Doing so predates Kato & Kawai, "George," and "Warren."
2. Boutique hard(er) steel replacement cutters like Hock extend the time between honings and work at least as well as the originals from the better vintage years.
3. If one uses planes a lot (not cycling through a perpetually rolling inventory of dozens of them) then at some point the need to obtain a replacement cutter is fairly likely. See no. 2.
4. Some people replace cutters of dubious vintage right off the reel. They weren't all of the same quality through the years, may be pitted, or have had their temper drawn by a previous, ham-fisted owner. Maybe all of these.

Not a bad summary, Charlie. I'd like to have been a fly on the wall in an 1850 shop, at least to observe for a day or so.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall in an 1850 shop, at least to observe for a day or so.

Out of curiosity, can we have a show of hands of those here who are full time professional furniture makers and do not use power tools or power machinery?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

Derek, a large swath of even the most notable furniture makers are not really employed full-time making furniture in that they either have their own school or heavy teaching schedules at others' schools.

A lot of people would dearly love to be full-time furniture makers without having to supplement (count on spouse, etc.). The choice of tooling is practically moot in the context in which you've posed the question. Fully utilized, even a slightly above average amateur shop is capable of producing tens of thousands of dollars worth of furniture and other custom woodworking. The only thing missing are the orders in a lot of instances.

It's not until one has commissions stacked one atop the other that any of this comes into play, except other than for a general disposition to let machines do the grunt work regardless of whether business is brisk or not.

The hand tool forums have long lost their 'purity' if they ever had it at all -- most everything is a blended build, power tools and hand tools, and this has been the rule for over a hundred years now pro or amateur.

 

[D_W]

Derek, a large swath of even the most notable furniture makers are not really employed full-time making furniture in that they either have their own school or heavy teaching schedules at others' schools.

A lot of people would dearly love to be full-time furniture makers without having to supplement. The choice of tooling is practically moot in the context in which you've posed the question.

Thank you, Charlie. The same response I was going to make. I don't personally know any full time furniture makers that don't supplement income some other way (repair and restoration, selling antiques, or more publicly on the forums "teaching classes", which unfortunately doesn't appear to have any barrier to entry any longer).

The exception to the above where I grew up is mennonites and amish. They are working more hours and for less than most would tolerate.

 

[Trafalgar]

Maybe it's time to engage in a debate of the relative merits of Hammer vs. Robland?

Derek?

Should we adjourn to the power tool forum for a refreshing change?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Maybe it's time to engage in a debate of the relative merits of Hammer vs. Robland?

Derek?

Should we adjourn to the power tool forum for a refreshing change?

Yeah .. :lol:

I gather that you have quite a bit of experience of machines - weren't you planning to return to building kitchen cabinets?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[n0legs]

My bed has drawers in it and the room is usually at about 16-18C, there's no damp I'm aware of. Would this be a good place for storing my planes?
Thanks in advance.

 

[Trafalgar]

I absolutely have experience of machines, as do you.

I wouldn't call it a 'return' to building kitchens since that implies I walked away from some sort of serious enterprise. And as mentioned, the investment in design software would be practically as substantial as the machines. People want to be able to see what their new kitchen will look like on their iPad while having lunch with their friends.

This is the state of the art package, though other less expensive ones would probably do in a pinch for one's own designs:

http://www.microvellum.com/

The problem comes when a job is designed by somebody else and they want to email an AutoCad file for the bid. If you ask them to print it out for you you've lost the job before you even get to bid. They couldn't care less about what saw you use to cut the wood, but they will insist that you be able to communicate via major design software, which over here means AutoCad or a package that can read and write AutoCad files.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I absolutely have experience of machines, as do you.

I wouldn't call it a 'return' to building kitchens since that implies I walked away from some sort of serious enterprise doing so.

I wouldn't be without my Hammer bandsaw (4400) and thickness-planer (A3-31). Beats buying in pre-dimensioned boards. I have a supplier that is an urban salvager - saves trees removed from building sites or falling down in storms. I've split a few trunks by hand, but it is not much fun at 65. The 4400 is a better number.

Anyway, the fun is in the hand shaping, not the coarse dimensioning.

Are you still roofing? I would not have the height for that.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

I don't put on roofing material but I frame roofs for a couple of contractors that don't like doing them or can't hang on to the expertise needed. Shingling, slating, etc. is a separate trade and business.

Somehow I ended up with a facility for geometry that comes in handy for framing fairly complicated roofs.

I am certainly getting too old to be up top.

 

[Trafalgar]

I absolutely have experience of machines, as do you.

I wouldn't call it a 'return' to building kitchens since that implies I walked away from some sort of serious enterprise doing so.

I wouldn't be without my Hammer bandsaw (4400) and thickness-planer (A3-31). Beats buying in pre-dimensioned boards. I have a supplier that is an urban salvager - saves trees removed from building sites or falling down in storms. I've split a few trunks by hand, but it is not much fun at 65. The 4400 is a better number.

Anyway, the fun is in the hand shaping, not the coarse dimensioning.

Are you still roofing? I would not have the height for that.

Regards from Perth

Derek

What are you currently doing for a tablesaw and jointer?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Charles, the Hammer A3-31 is a 12" under-over machine. Thicknesser (or planer, as you refer to it) and jointer combination machine.

I do not see the point in going wider than 12" for the jointer as that is the maximum resaw capacity of the bandsaw.

My tablesaw is a much modified Taiwanese "Carbatec" (think Grizzly) contractor saw that I have had about 20+ years. I recently added a 3 hp motor.

These machines have a small footprint. They stack up in the corner of my workshop/garage. Most of the available space is built around my workbench and handtools.

This is more familiar, and more used ...

I dream of working with Walnut and similar "soft" and well behaved woods. West Australian hardwoods are like carving concrete. The only handplanes that take really thick shavings are my jacks (the scrub does not get much use anymore). This is actually the point I was starting to make early on - how many do you know really work wood the way they did in 1850?

Regards from Perth

Derek