How to store Handplanes?

[D_W]

Mike, it might just be my wooden planes but when I look down the plane iron after securing the cap iron there is a visible deflection, very similar to a Bailey, sometimes more.

There is always some deflection on a double iron, this means the lower part of the iron and the top are in contact with the bed, the middle is not. On the limited amount of planes I've seen there seems to be evidence on this with polish on the top of the frog and at the bottom where the iron seems to be in closer contact.

I bet the wooden planes you make are wonderful, no question. I'm assuming you've made laminated Krenov style planes with a cross pin? if you don't mind me asking are they mainly smoothers or at least planes working on wood that has seen the heavy lifting done by machines? With the lighter touch and finer work it's not perhaps the hardest workout for proving there is no benefit to abutments and sprung cap irons.

If there was no benefit to having a wedge and abutment why were great lengths taken to make them that way? Same with the cap iron, it's all very precise stuff, highly evolved over a long time frame by people who were building totally by hand. More costly in terms of time and money spent.

As has been alluded to on another thread there is nothing like the threat of starvation to make someone fast and efficient at what they did. If all the effort of abutments, cap irons etc were a waste of time they would of vanished within no time.

I also don't think it's beyond reason for us to question the current designs and offerings provided and compare it with the past and discuss how they might be improved or benefits of modern designs. Modern makers have the quality and attention to detail to very high standards but were they made for an experienced hand tool user market? Surely the volume of most talented and experienced hand tool users were gone after WW2? I hope I don't offend anyone with this comment but I'm not sure there are many people alive today who could replicate the pace, rhythm and quality that people were able to do in the past.

Very well put, Graham. Before anyone can attempt to put together technical papers describing why something modern is better, they first have to understand the underlying drivers of the original designs - economic need, professional makers and professional users. Those things are very hard to overcome with makers testing their tools using machines and getting feedback from non-professional users.

 

[Mr_P]

What are these "cap irons" of which you speak ?

There's one on that rabbet plane!!

It's funny, most people have chipbreakers on most of their planes but not rabbet planes. You've got none on most planes, but your ECE rabbet plane has one.

Impressive D_W, most impressive, I put that their on purpose to see if anyone spotted it.

Mr P edantic here its actually an Ulmia.

 

[D_W]

What are these "cap irons" of which you speak ?

There's one on that rabbet plane!!

It's funny, most people have chipbreakers on most of their planes but not rabbet planes. You've got none on most planes, but your ECE rabbet plane has one.

Impressive D_W, most impressive, I put that their on purpose to see if anyone spotted it.

Mr P edantic here its actually an Ulmia.

I figured it might be an ulmia, but I am lazy and type the first thing that comes to mind.

I have one of the same thing (ulmia). It's a good plane, and in the rare case that a rebate needs to be sized with no tearout at the corners, it can work in any direction once it's set up, and take a thick shaving doing it.

And do it until the iron is completely dull - no pussyfooting around needed. Bit of a pain getting the iron in and out, though.

Moupe and others might get irritated by my directness, but I am a windbag with substance in my wind, not just a regular windbag!!

 

[swagman]

Moupe and others might get irritated by my directness, but I am a windbag with substance in my wind, not just a regular windbag!!

Ouch!

 

[mouppe]

[/quote]
Moupe and others might get irritated by my directness, but I am a windbag with substance in my wind, not just a regular windbag!![/quote]

You call it directness. I call it arrogance and rudeness. I believe it was in the rust-related thread you accused me of being a "mark" and a "newbie" for using jojoba oil. Similarly, it seems that anyone using a LN plane is a fool in your opinion. I've been on other forums where a pompous windbag joins and proceeds to compose lengthy posts about how his way of doing things is the only way. I don't mind reading your input, but perhaps you could refrain from belittling everyone else who does things differently?

 

[Jacob]

....belittling everyone else who does things differently?

I get accused of that too!
The problem is that "doing things differently" actually tends to mean doing things the same way as everybody else under the influence of the magazines, tool sellers, the usual suspects.
I think people feel safe in this crowd and don't welcome doubt of any sort!

 

[Trafalgar]

......I change what I'm doing and it helps. Leaving a board a little long and trimming the start and finish marks works better though. ...

There need not be start and finish marks. Practice practice!

No need. No need to borrow trouble. Why crosscut to exact length before a board is planed and smoothed to thickness? If you have a problem incising and sawing a clean cut off I'd say that's where practice is needed not in sweating a little chatter at the start of a cut that should be cut off as waste or at worst scraped and sanded out.

 

[Trafalgar]

...need a longer board....chatter at the ends.

Charles

Skew the plane ten degrees or so and give it a tiny bump of momentum to make sure it starts in the cut and you should have no marks. I always smooth plane stuff last (last before assembly at least). The only catch is that can be tough on drawers or things of that sort if you can't get a firm hold on the drawer such that the starting bump doesn't move the drawer instead of the plane.

I'll bet warren smooths finish sized stuff, too (I know he does, of course).

Seriously, though, skew the plane a little bit, feel if it's in the cut to start and give it a tiny tug to stay in the cut at the start of the board and the rest is a breeze. if it doesn't hook up in the wood right away at the edge, abort the stroke and do again.

It's faster to do this than it is to plane then scrape. If it isn't, something's not right.

I do skew the plane and it helps but ultimately I don't worry about it that much. I use a No. 08 when shooting drawers to size (I don't own a 7 other than my son's and it's put away). The 08 rarely chatters. Can't think of the last time it did. Once the side is shot, I don't touch it. Not even with a smoother. The chance that I'm going to put a smoother on a drawer side after the drawer has been glued is exactly zilch. It's not a best practice, not even close to it. See Alan Peters, not Warren Mickley. I still don't get the whole Warren thing and probably never will. It's difficult for the rest of the world to follow Warren since he has nothing in print of which I am aware.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I'm thinking of two different things when I talk about how the bailey plane fits well and how a plane with abutments fits well. I can describe it as this: If you turn the screw that retains the lever cap on a stanley a quarter of of a turn, the adjustability doesn't change much. It gets a little tighter. The lever cap still closes easily, the plane still adjusts easily. If you do that on a premium plane, you go from snug to impossible really quickly. That variation affects how well the cap is bedded at the iron.

Hi David

I'm sitting here with a LN #3 and playing with the adjuster to test out your observaton. I do not experience what you describe. The adjustment is smooth all the way through.

I have a favourite Stanley #3. In terms of actual performance I can get it to work as well as the LN. However that is not altogether a fair comparison since I did spend quite a bit of time tuning the Stanley - and did not have to tune the LN - and the Stanley has a Veritas PM-V11 blade and chipbreaker. The main difference (outside of fit, finish and looks) is that the Stanley's adjustments have significantly more backlash (feel sloppy). I am used to this, so this is not a big deal. Nevertheless, it points to the LN being consistently precise rather than going from "snug to impossible".

As far as smoothing goes, I take coarse smoother shavings until I can go left to right on something with continuous shavings, and then I back off and take one or two thin shavings. The bulk of the work is probably done more at 3 thousandths plus. There's a difference between me and someone pulling a dead flat board off of a machine planer. But, someone using a machine planer with a board that has any attitude, or a board that has sat a day or two would do well to duplicate what I just described.

I am curious to know what you are building and what wood you are using to plane in this fashion. Any coarse or medium shavings I take are generally with a longer plane. If I use a machine, I leave room to complete the process with a jointer plane (as I believe that the finish is better and the machine leaves its own marks anyway), and then to a smoother. I do not go from the power jointer to a smoother. The same goes if I use a tablesaw - I rip close to a line, then use a jointer plane. I use machines as I am working with very hard wood. I end up taking fine shavings when the parts are together (such as the M&T in drawer frames) as I am flushing them out. That is the time for caution and precision. What are you building that is dealt with in a more cavalier manner?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

Taking a thick(ish) shaving with a No. 3 or 4 is my idea of torture unless the irons are ridiculously curved and that becomes a scrubbing operation. You need at least the mass of a 4.5 or bigger plane IMO but why would anybody need to remove baulk with a smoother? Sure don't get that one.

 

[D_W]

It's harder to take a same-thickness shaving with a 4 1/2 than a #4.

I'd consider 4 thousandths to be a thick smoother shaving. something just under 2 to be finish in most cases (really, you could finish off of 4).

I'm not sure why, charlie, I'd go to alan peters for planing advice instead of warren. Warren makes a living using tools, and not making studio furniture. I discounted his advice for a long long time, and when I stopped doing that, I found he was correct.

Derek mentioned a lot of tools that alan peters had that weren't hand tools.

Perhaps I could ask the question of george, though with the planes, it goes back not to what he wanted to use at williamsburg, but what they were required to use.

 

[D_W]

I am curious to know what you are building and what wood you are using to plane in this fashion. Any coarse or medium shavings I take are generally with a longer plane. If I use a machine, I leave room to complete the process with a jointer plane (as I believe that the finish is better and the machine leaves its own marks anyway), and then to a smoother. I do not go from the power jointer to a smoother. The same goes if I use a tablesaw - I rip close to a line, then use a jointer plane. I use machines as I am working with very hard wood. I end up taking fine shavings when the parts are together (such as the M&T in drawer frames) as I am flushing them out. That is the time for caution and precision. What are you building that is dealt with in a more cavalier manner?

Regards from Perth

Derek

I'll refer back to something that warren said, and that's he's never understood the need to have a heavy plane to take a significant shaving. We provide the momentum, not the plane. After the cut starts (which is a bit more difficult with a lighter plane than a heavy plane), a heavy plane is more work.

Maple, Cherry, Beech - those would be the three things I work the most. Occasionally (once a year or so), cocobolo.

What's more cavalier? Cabinets (cases), kitchen cabinets, planes? Pretty much everything?

If I had a good power planer and jointer, I'd go straight to a smoother for most things, the exception being glued joints and match planed areas. I think that's probably standard procedure in most power tool oriented shops. A friend of mine has a DJ 20 and DC 580 planer with spiral heads. You can glue up off of the jointer without an issue. The planer leaves no tearout, so compression from the knives is all you're planing out.

 

[Trafalgar]

I'll refer to Alan Peters who used nothing but a heavy plane (and this was so even when he was at Barnsley before the shop was mechanized). Whom do you imagine the vast majority of people would listen to? Should listen to?

 

[Trafalgar]

It's harder to take a same-thickness shaving with a 4 1/2 than a #4.

I'd consider 4 thousandths to be a thick smoother shaving. something just under 2 to be finish in most cases (really, you could finish off of 4).

I'm not sure why, charlie, I'd go to alan peters for planing advice instead of warren. Warren makes a living using tools, and not making studio furniture. I discounted his advice for a long long time, and when I stopped doing that, I found he was correct.

Derek mentioned a lot of tools that alan peters had that weren't hand tools.

Perhaps I could ask the question of george, though with the planes, it goes back not to what he wanted to use at williamsburg, but what they were required to use.

What does he use tools to make? Why do you have such a disdain for 'studio' furnituremakers? Alan Peters' work was far from being 'way out there' as that term can sometimes connote.

Alan Peters' entire apprenticeship was done in a completely unmechanized shop.

What exactly does Warren Mickley build? I've never been able to figure it out. Help us out here. Do you live near him?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

If I had a good power planer and jointer, I'd go straight to a smoother for most things, the exception being glued joints and match planed areas. I think that's probably standard procedure in most power tool oriented shops. A friend of mine has a DJ 20 and DC 580 planer with spiral heads. You can glue up off of the jointer without an issue. The planer leaves no tearout, so compression from the knives is all you're planing out.

David, I have a good power planer (thicknesser) and jointer: A Hammer A3-31 with spiral heads. It is amazingly good (and quiet) and I rarely see even the glimmer of tearout. Nevertheless I still use long planes on the surface since there will always be faint machine marks. In addition, even if I joint edges on the machine, they are still not clean enough (for my liking) to glue up. I always use a jointer plane.

It is great having a machine such as this, but there are many boards I will just flatten and finish with handplanes. It comes down to size and hardness (and often I am too lazy to walk over and set up the machine, which is tucked away in a corner). My jack plane makes short work of waste, and the jointers remove the remainder.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

I don't mind reading your input, but perhaps you could refrain from belittling everyone else who does things differently?

There's a certain amount of "everything is OK" kind of talk that after you see it 100 times, you just get worn out, that's kind of I guess why I take the direct route.

I've noticed over the years, too, that if you take that track, it often leaves discussions untouched. I love when people prove me wrong, I learn from it. I learned to use the cap iron without direction because I assumed that someone who advocated it (and who was belittled on other forums for advocating it all the time) insisted that it worked and that I was wrong. I thought I was going to prove him wrong, and he proved me wrong.

I'm sure not everyone agrees with my conclusions because they come from someone who is moving toward doing work entirely by hand (or who has in many cases - I have).

The perspective is different, there are a lot of things I don't agree with derek on (or LN/LV) because they're not dimensioning wood from rough at this point (derek due to machines, and LN and LV might have the tools to dimension from rough, but it's to meet a market niche, not to have people doing it competently with physical economy).

Here's an example - a friend who I gave a plane to went to an LN event last year. I told him to set the cap iron close on their planes and blast off a shaving and see what they do. So, he went to a piece of test curly maple, set the cap close and whizzed off several thick shavings - with a lie nielsen 8. They went into a panic, and someone rushed over to "fix" the situation by putting the plane back to smoother setting and suggesting that users buy and use a #8 to smooth because the mass makes it easier. When a company is recommending a 10 pound plane to smooth, how do you even respond to something like that?

That's what makes me testy sometimes, and other times, I'm trying to pry an answer out of people so I can learn something, even though people often don't want to give one.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Sorry Charlie, I was typing at the same time as you - did not mean to sidetrack. I am interested in a reply to your question.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

Alan Peters smoothed with a No. 7 his entire career. I gather that this was very common at the Barnsley workshop.

http://www.barnsley-furniture.co.uk/

 

[D_W]

What does he use tools to make? Why do you have such a disdain for 'studio' furnituremakers? Alan Peters' work was far from being 'way out there' as that term can sometimes connote.

Alan Peters' entire apprenticeship was done in a completely unmechanized shop.

What exactly does Warren Mickley build? I've never been able to figure it out. Help us out here. Do you live near him?

I don't have any real disdain for studio furniture makers, I'm just not interested in having studio furniture, so that cuts it off. I think alan peters sounds like he was a fine man, and the brief interviews I saw of him late in life, he had practicality that is lacking in most of the instructional material provided now - practicality that arises out of experience. I don't find any of his comments as irritating as the one that I seem to be fielding often now in private messages on youtube, which is "krenov said plane handles are uncomfortable, and so they are. I plan to make a plane like yours with no handle because it will give me more holding options". Really. People preferred handles for centuries and now they are out because of one guru.

I do live near warren (and am several times within a few miles of where he is). I'm curious about what he builds, too, since he doesn't seem to know much about taking and posting pictures. That's one of the reasons I didn't follow his advice. I don't get the sense that he's the kind of person who wants a visitor (different than George).

As for where I'd go for information in going hand tool only, I would say texts from a time when people did it - though it can be difficult to find something comprehensive. I read about four carving texts until I had the good sense to talk to george and ask him what to read, and he recommended a book edited by paul hasluck. what a revelation. I probably should try to find more about planing, where some of the old texts advocate exactly the opposite of what new agers recommend (specifically, things like jacking with the grain instead of across it whenever it's possible to).

If you know of texts from, lets say, late 1800s or earlier that describe planing, I'd love to know what they are.

 

[Trafalgar]

Are you saying you don't know what he builds?

If a long plane is cutting fine why would you put it down? Why not take it all the way to the finish line? There's no law that says you have to go jack-jointer-smoother every single time you plane a board.

For God's sake don't tell me you've never just gone ahead and finished off a board with a jointer or a No. 6. Please. That's just insane, especially working our hardwoods the vast majority of which aren't really that difficult to plane. Cherry is a flippin' breeze to plane.