How to store Handplanes?

[D_W]

Derek, I have about 75 double iron pairs in my box, and very few of them are similar to the LN or LV cap irons. There are a couple that I would call clapped out or flattened for some reason, but most of them have a lot of spring.

I just measured two, one that was out in my try plane, and the next one that was on top of my pile of double irons. Both have a gap of about 3/32nd inch at the top of the hump after they've been tightened down. How much of a gap is there in the "improved" cap irons. The gauge of metal is heavier, but the gap spans the entire distance back to the cap iron screw. Improved irons are not similar, they are a small gap without any curvature.

The stanley irons are a lighter gauge but the span that the spring spans is far less and the plane is a different design. To go back to what you're suggesting is that the two have something to do with each other, and as you asserted earlier, that's crossing something for wooden planes to metal.

As for "stability", i'm sure you could show an iron and cap iron that is 3 times as thick as the "improved" iron would be more stable, but you're solving a made up problem. If a stanley plane chatters, it's not set up properly. It's not an issue of design, it's an issue of incompetence. You'll have to pardon me for not being swayed by arguments made on badger pond when none of the involved individuals had a clue what the cap iron was for in the first place. Setting it properly is the very thing that eliminates any instability.

And the insinuation that I'm working from less solid footings than you are for my assertions on anything related to cap irons is humorous to say the least.

 

[Trafalgar]

Anybody interested in understanding the effect of a curved cap iron just need to close the mouth up a little on the plane. Anybody who thinks mouth aperture isn't effective don't get how the two are supposed to work together. The cap iron is curved and the frog adjustable for a reason. People who've abandoned mouth aperture is nothing more than evidence of the 'cap iron pendulum' having swung too far. The two work in concert. Anybody abandoning one adjustment for the other are needlessly tying an arm behind their own back. It's ridiculous.

Stop sniffing the air and get back to basics. It's all in Planecraft, worked out decades ago.

These two adjustments, mouth aperture and cap iron setting are what makes it possible to smooth, if one so chooses, with any plane in the Stanley/Record bench plane line. If you like additional mass, simply set up your No. 6 with a tight mouth and close cap iron and smooth away. Or your 08, 07 or whatever. You don't have to buy a bronze plane if you enjoy finish planing with a heavier tool. This is a good thing, not something to curl one's lip over.

 

[swagman]

The following should be treated as personal opinions only.

Stewie;

I prefer thinner irons because when properly sharpened and set they don’t chatter and the steel in both plane types sharpen up quickly, being only half as thick as irons made by more prominent makers of today, and take and hold a good sharp edge. I also like the lightness of these planes which of course is counter to everything we are being told today. https://paulsellers.com/2014/05/planes- ... work-with/

Someone said we should just use thick irons and heavyweight planes and eliminate the possibility. I disagree because there are many other things that we should consider seriously. One thing is that we are using 30-40% more steel, often the wrong steel, and we cannot use only hand methods to sharpen because we must now remove one third as much steel to maintain a good edge to our tools. https://paulsellers.com/2012/06/ok-clos ... in-planes/

The double iron, we think, offered and increase in the effective thickness of the iron without the negative increase in sharpening time. http://www.planemaker.com/articles_single_v_double.html

 

[swagman]

Anybody interested in understanding the effect of a curved cap iron just need to close the mouth up a little on the plane. Anybody who thinks mouth aperture isn't effective don't get how the two are supposed to work together. The cap iron is curved and the frog adjustable for a reason. People who've abandoned mouth aperture is nothing more than evidence of the 'cap iron pendulum' having swung too far. The two work in concert. Anybody abandoning one adjustment for the other are needlessly tying an arm behind their own back. It's ridiculous.

Stop sniffing the air and get back to basics. It's all in Planecraft, worked out decades ago.

These two adjustments, mouth aperture and cap iron setting are what makes it possible to smooth, if one so chooses, with any plane in the Stanley/Record bench plane line. If you like additional mass, simply set up your No. 6 with a tight mouth and close cap iron and smooth away. Or your 08, 07 or whatever. You don't have to buy a bronze plane if you enjoy finish planing with a heavier tool. This is a good thing, not something to curl one's lip over.

Hi Charles. I following may be of interest.

Stewie;

Set the Mouth Opening.

While the lion's share of attention goes to getting a keen edge on the blade, several other steps will help you get the best from your plane. One is adjusting the mouth opening. On a bevel down plane, this is achieved by moving the frog forward or backward until the opening is slightly wider than the thickness of the desired shaving. For smoothing planes, very fine shavings are the goal so you will want to set a very narrow gap. The opening can be wider for jointers and wider still for jack planes set up to take thick shavings when roughing out a board.
http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/wood ... plane.html

 

[D_W]

Charlie, the mouth isn't important at all, except maybe on a bulk removal plane like a jack. Otherwise, its only practical function (assuming one can actually set a cap iron) is to not be so open that a beginner or tired user would introduce a plane to the board at an angle and literally pry a chunk off of the end by accident.

The mouth works as disaster prevention (e.g., it can limit the damage a jack can do), but it's not very good at elimination of tearout in general until it's so tight that it restricts plane function.

I tried that already building infills, and even the panel plane set at a hundredth wasn't very good if the wood wasn't top choice stuff (as in, it couldn't leave a finished surface, which is something you like to do off of the panel plane if you can). I set the plane aside (it's heavy, too), and got it back out in 2012 two years later only to find that it's spectacular with a cap iron set properly. But it's still heavy (close to 9 pounds).

I'm still confused by the idea that a manufacturer can *not* know how to use a cap iron but somehow improve it over a manufacturer that can use one.

It might be that bailey's fascination with closing the mouth was actually for non-finish work rather than the assumption that it was for finishing work. I don't know, though, I don't have his phone number.

 

[swagman]

Edmund A. Schade's 9/3/1895 (fine frog adjustment)

This invention relates to planes, and especially to that class of tools commonly known TO as "smoothing-planes," and it has for its object to provide an improved supporting and adjusting device for the plane-knife or plane-iron, whereby the same can be quickly and accurately adjusted with relation to the work to be done, and also to provide an improved clamping device for said plane knife or iron, whereby the same will be firmly held against vibration in the use of the plane.
http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... 545732.htm

Stewie;

 

[Trafalgar]

David, get a Primus smoother and you can watch with your own eyes the effect of changing mouth aperture while holding everything else constant - iron projection, capiron setting, neither has to change while you change the mouth opening. It's an eye opener.

 

[swagman]

Near the end of the 2nd paragraph, Bailey mentions his use of thin steel for plane irons was based on "economics".

Stewie;

The difficulty experienced from the construction of the cap-iron with the single bend a, is, that it allows of vibration of the cap-iron and the plane-iron while in use, such vibration being productive of what joiners term "chattering," and consequent defective operation of the plane.

When thick plane-irons are used, their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap sufficiently to pre- vent 'buckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thin steel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where .it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I effectually prevent "buckling" and "chattering," whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons.

In carrying out my improvement, I make the cap-iron with an additional bend, I, (see figs. 2 and 3,) at a short distance back of its lower end or toe, or at a distance therefrom equal to about double the distance at which such lower edge or toe is to be from the main bend a, or the toe of the bearer B, the same being as shown in figs. 2 and I, so as to cause the cap-iron D' to bear on the plane-iron E'' in three places, or at the toe and auxiliary bend of the cap-iron, and along from such bend to the heel or upper end of the cap-iron. This construction or formation of the cap-iron D' completely obviates the difficulty above mentioned, and is a very valuable and useful improvement. http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _72443.htm

 

[Trafalgar]

He already knew the cap iron prevented tearout, he just changed the construction of his to help eliminate chatter, too. These were and are not mutually exclusive. The pronounced hump may very well have been serendipitous on two fronts. I think it was.

 

[D_W]

David, get a Primus smoother and you can watch with your own eyes the effect of changing mouth aperture while holding everything else constant - iron projection, capiron setting, neither has to change while you change the mouth opening. It's an eye opener.

Charlie, I got one a while ago, a good one, too, beech and lignum, but I didn't find much favor for it (it didn't do anything better than the stanley, but it was definitely a bigger pain in the rear to disassemble to sharpen the iron). I got it to try because you have been recommending it for a long time. I'm glad I bought it right, because it made it a free try more or less, except the cost of shipping.

I've made several planes that relied on the mouth opening to control tearout, and the condition is substandard to the cap iron when trying to get a finish. It does limit tearout on a very coarse shaving to some extent (jack), but even on a try plane it's a second rate method compared to the cap iron.

to the extent that the escapement of a plane is not 90 degrees or greater, if the mouth begins to interfere with the cap iron setting, it's just in the way and preventing the best setup (which on a bailey plane that hasn't had someone file the mouth open is when the frog and base of the casting are flush.

 

[swagman]

He already knew the cap iron prevented tearout, he just changed the construction of his to help eliminate chatter, too. These were and are not mutually exclusive. The pronounced hump may very well have been serendipitous on two fronts. I think it was.

Hi Charles. It seems obvious that Bailey's decision to use thinner steel on his plane irons left him with no alternative but to design a more effective cap iron. What was also interesting to read within the patent Edmund A. Schade's 9/3/1895 (fine frog adjustment) , was the mention of smoothing planes. Inferring at that time period, there was an exclusive need only for smoothing planes to be set to a tight mouth opening.

If that was the mindset during that same time period. Why did STANLEY bother fitting the Edmund A. Schade's fine frog adjustment on all of their bench planes. !!!

Stewie;

 

[D_W]

In carrying out my improvement, I make the cap-iron with an additional bend, I, (see figs. 2 and 3,) at a short distance back of its lower end or toe, or at a distance therefrom equal to about double the distance at which such lower edge or toe is to be from the main bend a, or the toe of the bearer B, the same being as shown in figs. 2 and I, so as to cause the cap-iron D' to bear on the plane-iron E'' in three places, or at the toe and auxiliary bend of the cap-iron, and along from such bend to the heel or upper end of the cap-iron. This construction or formation of the cap-iron D' completely obviates the difficulty above mentioned, and is a very valuable and useful improvement. http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _72443.htm

His explanation of why it still eliminates chatter looks a lot like what I said, that the second bend reduces the span of the spring.

This leads to another thing in why the long span design in the lie nielsen and other planes is not an improvement - the long span of the old wooden type is needed to get a good fit along the length of the wedge given that the position of the fingers on the wedge is something that won't be constant over the life of the plane.

When the holding device is switched to a lever cap, the point of contact is one line horizontal instead of two. The design of the "improved" cap iron becomes dopey because it requires a thicker gauge to work properly. The only thing that needs to be correct on the bailey type cap iron is that the lever cap needs to sit on the top of the hump (it can't be too short, and you can't always just take one from one plane and put it with another).

If the "premium" makers thought the stanley wasn't rigid enough, they would've looked a whole lot more intelligent if they would've just thickened the gauge some. Bailey and whoever else worked with him post stanley were far better designers than anyone at the premium plane making companies. Looking at the design of the adjuster screw and their choice of wood (which is difficult these days), they had a better design aesthetic. The one thing that is just completely offputting on a lie nielsen plane, for example, is the adjuster wheel looks like a slab that comes from an industrial supply center vs. the hollowed wheel on a stanley plane with a tasteful segmented knurl. Lie nielsen would've done well to copy the square sided bedrock plane exactly, all the way down to the knurls on the adjuster. They could keep their color scheme by using bronze and keep the boasts about the tolerances (which means something only to beginners), and get rid of the amatuerish changes they made. Including the cap iron.

 

[D_W]

Inferring at that time period, there was an exclusive need only for smoothing planes to be set to a tight mouth opening.

It could've been a differentiator because the frog has to be made separately, anyway - a marketing attempt. the only need for a very tight mouth opening would've been for users too dopey to know how to seat the cap iron to eliminate tearout.

The idea of closing everything down tight missed the train when the norris planes were made.

 

[swagman]

Inferring at that time period, there was an exclusive need only for smoothing planes to be set to a tight mouth opening.

It could've been a differentiator because the frog has to be made separately, anyway - a marketing attempt. the only need for a very tight mouth opening would've been for users too dopey to know how to seat the cap iron to eliminate tearout.

The idea of closing everything down tight missed the train when the norris planes were made.

Hi David. If we accept the benefit of a closely set cap iron was already established during this time period, then I cant agree with your statement. Within the wording of Edmund A. Schade's 9/3/1895 (fine frog adjustment) patent, it specifically mentions smoothing planes. The inference being that a tightly set mouth was seen as preferable on a smoothing plane only during that time period. I also tend to think Stanley must of realised some production benefits in casting the frog seperately, and as such made the decision to do so on all of their bench planes.

Stewie;

 

[Trafalgar]

David, get a Primus smoother and you can watch with your own eyes the effect of changing mouth aperture while holding everything else constant - iron projection, capiron setting, neither has to change while you change the mouth opening. It's an eye opener.

Charlie, I got one a while ago, a good one, too, beech and lignum, but I didn't find much favor for it (it didn't do anything better than the stanley, but it was definitely a bigger pain in the rear to disassemble to sharpen the iron). I got it to try because you have been recommending it for a long time. I'm glad I bought it right, because it made it a free try more or less, except the cost of shipping.

I've made several planes that relied on the mouth opening to control tearout, and the condition is substandard to the cap iron when trying to get a finish. It does limit tearout on a very coarse shaving to some extent (jack), but even on a try plane it's a second rate method compared to the cap iron.

to the extent that the escapement of a plane is not 90 degrees or greater, if the mouth begins to interfere with the cap iron setting, it's just in the way and preventing the best setup (which on a bailey plane that hasn't had someone file the mouth open is when the frog and base of the casting are flush.

Weird, then, all of the people who raved about Clark & Williams single iron smoothers which controlled tearout completely with frog angle and tight mouth. Placebo effect? "I bought it, it must be good." While I understand Larry's health hasn't been good for a number of years they finally cried uncle on the backorder list and quit taking new orders.

 

[Trafalgar]

He already knew the cap iron prevented tearout, he just changed the construction of his to help eliminate chatter, too. These were and are not mutually exclusive. The pronounced hump may very well have been serendipitous on two fronts. I think it was.

Hi Charles. It seems obvious that Bailey's decision to use thinner steel on his plane irons left him with no alternative but to design a more effective cap iron. What was also interesting to read within the patent Edmund A. Schade's 9/3/1895 (fine frog adjustment) , was the mention of smoothing planes. Inferring at that time period, there was an exclusive need only for smoothing planes to be set to a tight mouth opening.

If that was the mindset during that same time period. Why did STANLEY bother fitting the Edmund A. Schade's fine frog adjustment on all of their bench planes. !!!

Stewie;

Don't know why but I'm glad Stanley Co. /L. Bailey or whomever did. I like to stop the mouth down pretty tight on my 08. I don't like an extremely close setting of the chipbreaker on this plane. I get the best performance by paying attention to both adjustments, and more or less 'splitting the difference' which is apparently what the principals had in mind at the time given that both are adjustable -- frog and capiron.

 

[D_W]

David, get a Primus smoother and you can watch with your own eyes the effect of changing mouth aperture while holding everything else constant - iron projection, capiron setting, neither has to change while you change the mouth opening. It's an eye opener.

Charlie, I got one a while ago, a good one, too, beech and lignum, but I didn't find much favor for it (it didn't do anything better than the stanley, but it was definitely a bigger pain in the rear to disassemble to sharpen the iron). I got it to try because you have been recommending it for a long time. I'm glad I bought it right, because it made it a free try more or less, except the cost of shipping.

I've made several planes that relied on the mouth opening to control tearout, and the condition is substandard to the cap iron when trying to get a finish. It does limit tearout on a very coarse shaving to some extent (jack), but even on a try plane it's a second rate method compared to the cap iron.

to the extent that the escapement of a plane is not 90 degrees or greater, if the mouth begins to interfere with the cap iron setting, it's just in the way and preventing the best setup (which on a bailey plane that hasn't had someone file the mouth open is when the frog and base of the casting are flush.

Weird, then, all of the people who raved about Clark & Williams single iron smoothers which controlled tearout completely with frog angle and tight mouth. Placebo effect? "I bought it, it must be good." While I understand Larry's health hasn't been good for a number of years they finally cried uncle on the backorder list and quit taking new orders.

Larry's smoothers are intended to work a fairly thin shaving. I'm sure bedded at 55 degrees, they will work a thin shaving (the finish on softwoods would suffer, though).

I noticed something watching Larry's video that he had to skew his smoother to limit tearout on the quartered face of a beech billet, and he was already taking a thin shaving. when I work a plane billet, after the try plane (which is set coarse enough that there might be minor tearout - not of the ripping long type, but the kind where it's not smooth to the touch). I never have to skew a stanley plane when finishing the side of a plane billet.

Long and short, I'm sure they work well, but not as well as a stanley with the cap iron set.

Larry's been very lucky to have two captive audiences.
* the first is the users of planes at colonial williamsburg - they are not allowed to use a double iron because the curators have control over what they can use, and they felt that double iron planes weren't common in the 18th century. I think you know where I got that information.
* there are no other makers of wooden planes for most of larry's time making planes. Only recently are there other options. Also, most people had not clue how to use the cap iron, regardless of what's in text. It's clear. Especially with most of larry's clientele - I'm sure there are some advanced users, but you know where most of those planes went.

One of the reasons I made a few planes available is some of the information that Larry has gotten wrong. First, Larry described a double iron plane iron as needing to be wider because the fingers create a shaving trap, and the shaving has to be narrower than the plane iron to avoid a clog. I've disproven that (all I had to do was find a properly made english griffiths plane that wasn't clapped out). There are several reasons why larry thinks that this trap exists, I won't go through them unless someone wants to hear what they are, but it's safe to say he's not correct on any of them. Second, larry asserted that you can't set the cap iron in practice at a distance that would make it effective. That's also untrue, it's actually pretty easy to set the cap iron too close on purpose, but at a distance where it still hasn't gone past the end of an iron.

So, what do I think? I think Larry was able to make all of those statements for so long because only warren seemed to know that they were bunk.

I know that with my planes, you can remove more wood and leave a cleaner surface for the same level of effort.

Steve Voigt tells me that there's nothing in print that really describes how a double iron plane needs to be made so that it doesn't have problem. I don't read as much historic stuff as steve does, I just know I was able to keep hunting until I found an old plane in good enough shape that was well made and hadn't moved around too much or got worn out. After that, I know exactly what I'd look for in an old plane were I to buy.

A similar problem in finding a *good* single iron plane exists - it's not easy to find an old one that's not worn out. I did manage to also find an unused JT brown jointer from the early 1800s. You can work with it, of course, but it's much less capable than my try planes. Not a boast, but as george says, simple fact.

I don't sell planes, but I would be willing to take a set of tasks with my plane against the same set with larry's plane (and a much more competent user can be chosen for larry's planes than I am with mine), and I'm sure that I would be done first and the surfaces would be brighter. The latter doesn't matter so much, you can do a million things to finish a surface. The former matters to me some.

If you're not into my brand of proof, all you have to look at is how double iron planes eliminated single iron planes. Larry's only argument against that is that the single iron planes must've been so good that they got used up and disappeared. I find that pretty far fetched. It's still all out there in text if anyone thinks I've misquoted.

(Larry wouldn't have backorders if he worked at the same rate that the vintage makers worked at. The fact that he has a backorder list is of his own design).

 

[bugbear]

I note the view that teachers/instructors/masters "in the old days" used to
state (with some vigour) that planes should be placed on their sides,
and that placing them down on their soles (possibly on a lath) is a
modern development.

I was reading George Ellis' Modern Practical Joinery last night (as you do)
and found this:

(page 31, 1908 edition)

Planes when out of use for more than a few
hours, should have the wedges released,
as the continued tension is injurious to the plane.
When temporarily out of use, bench planes
should their fronts resting on a thin slip of wood
screwed to the bench top to keep the cutters
free from damage. On no account should
planes be laid upon their sides on the bench,
as apart from the danger of running the
hands against the cutters, if the soles are exposed
for any length of time to the action of the sun
they will cast, and it at all unseasoned, split.

BugBear

 

[D_W]

That's an interesting narrative. If you look around, there aren't a whole lot of really old planes that haven't split somewhere. If the plane's in good shape, it will still often have cosmetic splits.

I've got a jack that I made last year, for some reason it's got a very light split in the sole that doesn't get to the ends. I think it's almost inevitable with beech unless the plane is heavily oiled when made and then touched up from time to time and never exposed to much change in relative humidity.

I'm also curious about having the wedge set. In my opinion, some of that is necessary in a new plane, but not many people are using new planes. There are certain woods (cocobolo being one I have experience with) where the sole of the plane will bulge if the wedge is set and the plane left to sit for a while, but I haven't experienced the same thing in beech. Time will tell.

I wouldn't want to put a plane on its side for a lot of reasons, including the above, and I doubt that it's a modern thing, as most of the old paintings and pictures of shops that I've seen show planes handle-side up.

Thanks for that excerpt, bugbear.

 

[bugbear]

I wouldn't want to put a plane on its side for a lot of reasons, including the above, and I doubt that it's a modern thing, as most of the old paintings and pictures of shops that I've seen show planes handle-side up.

Thanks for that excerpt, bugbear.

I always liked Alf's practical suggestion - put the plane down, sole down, on a pile of shavings.

Because (for obvious reasons) there really ought to be some shavings handily nearby.

BugBear