How to store Handplanes?

[Mr_P]

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've bought more than my share of job lots over the last few year years and rusty metal planes can often be found with perfect wooden ones. I'm sure I've read on here that timber for planes was air dried for upto a decade and then soaked in linseed for a year or so.

People often refer to beech as not dimensionally stable so you would think a poor choice for planes but guess its how you treat it and quarter sawn also helps.

 

[D_W]

I have found it (with properly sawn billets) to be perfectly stable. I am closer to paying a lot of attention to beech than most, but less knowledgeable about it than a professional maker would be.

It still moves if it's not sawn perfectly pith on center, but most of the planes (even the later ones with other quality compromises) were made with pretty straight wood and the planes with twist (the ultimate result of poor wood choice more than anything else) are the rare example of a plane made with the pith off center by a large amount - horizontally.

That's bench planes.

Later molding planes are more of a grab bag. I'm sure everyone on here is already familiar with that.

Beech and apple are *horrible* if they are not properly sawn. The worst. They are the two worst woods I have had with cracking and checking, too, but they make such a great plane that doesn't exhibit any of the problems of other woods I've used.

(ditto on the old planes. My oldest plane is an early 1800s american plane that was nearly unused. Someone put it very dry and I was lucky that when the dryness reduced its width, the iron didn't blow out the sides, but it was very tight. I don't have any metal tools older than the 1860s or so, and they are in rough shape.)

I don't think beech planes are going to make much more of a comeback than being shop jewelry like a lot of C&W and japanese planes have become until or unless it becomes fashionable to work wood entirely by hand again.

(my billets are kiln dried, so I can't compare. A 16/4 beech billet will dry fully in a year, unlike most wood, but it can be temperamental and crack a lot if you let it dry as fast as it'd like. It's extremely transient to oil and water - if you fill the mortise on a new billet with oil, it will soak into the plane in a matter of hours, and if you do it once in a day, again before bed on a long plane, there will be oil on the ends of the plane the next morning - it goes the who way through the straws. But too much can make a long plane heavy).

 

[David C]

post in wrong thread!!

 

[David C]

How odd.

Why do we never see cap irons which conform to Baileys patent?

Every one I have seen in the last 40 years touches the blade at tip, screw and maybe top. Never the the top end of the curve.

These were mostly new but a fair number of second hand ones too.

David Charlesworth

 

[D_W]

How odd.

Why do we never see cap irons which conform to Baileys patent?

Every one I have seen in the last 40 years touches the blade at tip, screw and maybe top. Never the the top end of the curve.

These were mostly new but a fair number of second hand ones too.

David Charlesworth

Just my opinion, but I think the bias allows the cap iron to work, and the curve creates enough rigidity. Too much bias toward the back of the hump and there wouldn't be enough pressure at the front to keep chips from going under it.

As in, if it's not according to patent, i'd rather them be the way they are than have them be off in the other direction.

If they were set from the factory to have contact on both ends of the hump, the first person to set up the cap iron or repair it would have to bend the cap iron or the bias would be in the wrong place.

 

[David C]

Yes, It would require very precise tweaking.

David

 

[Trafalgar]

David, et al. with regard to Larry Williams' planes I'm simply referring to the number of users who've reported on forums their ability to plane tearout free with them. Tearout free is tearout free, unless for some reason we cannot take these reports at face value. File it in the 'everybody exaggerates on woodworking forums' file? Probably.

I don't plane tearout free and probably never will. Couldn't care less. I can scrape pretty much tearout free and what it leaves behind sandpaper easily rectifies.

Managing to plane tearout free is about as much an accomplishment as figuring out a different way to turn the shop lights on each day. It just doesn't matter. It's so easily and unobtrusively gotten rid of as to not matter. Or leave a little. Give the hand something to find. Ahhh, HERE the wood protested. And the craftsman let it speak its mind. Leave a surprise or two for somebody to find.

 

[D_W]

David, et al. with regard to Larry Williams' planes I'm simply referring to the number of users who've reported on forums their ability to plane tearout free with them. Tearout free is tearout free, unless for some reason we cannot take these reports at face value. File it in the 'everybody exaggerates on woodworking forums' file? Probably.

I don't plane tearout free and probably never will. Couldn't care less. I can scrape pretty much tearout free and what it leaves behind sandpaper easily rectifies.

Managing to plane tearout free is about as much an accomplishment as figuring out a different way to turn the shop lights on each day. It just doesn't matter. It's so easily and unobtrusively gotten rid of as to not matter. Or leave a little. Give the hand something to find. Ahhh, HERE the wood protested. And the craftsman let it speak its mind. Leave a surprise or two for somebody to find.

I plane tearout free without skewing the plane. That includes on quartered beech - all of it, not just the nice pieces.

Holcombe does it on the other forum, he planes exactly as my article described. Check out his surfaces. It's not hard and it doesn't take long. I have no clue why anyone would want to leave it (without spending any additional time if removing it) except for the case where they can't manage to eliminate it. Which seems to be the case for a lot of people.

I mentioned above, and several people get cranked up when I mention larry's planes and single irons - they work. That's fine. they just aren't as capable as a common pitch double iron, except in the hands of novice or beginner users, perhaps the opposite is the case. I don't generally like to judge tools by the level of users...that kind of thing brings us planes with setscrews and such things.

I don't suggest that some average users are getting tearout with larry's planes, but rather larry himself...on a video he made. He actually says it out loud and suggests skewing the plane to remedy it. That's with a smoother, not a long plane or jack.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

How odd.

Why do we never see cap irons which conform to Baileys patent?

Every one I have seen in the last 40 years touches the blade at tip, screw and maybe top. Never the the top end of the curve.

These were mostly new but a fair number of second hand ones too.

David Charlesworth

I suspect this may have ended up in the wrong thread; I've copied the comment over to the "Bailey Style planes, thin irons and cap-irons" thread, and posted an answer (of sorts!) on page 4 of that thread.

 

[David C]

Thanks,

David

 

[swagman]

David, et al. with regard to Larry Williams' planes I'm simply referring to the number of users who've reported on forums their ability to plane tearout free with them. Tearout free is tearout free, unless for some reason we cannot take these reports at face value. File it in the 'everybody exaggerates on woodworking forums' file? Probably.

I don't plane tearout free and probably never will. Couldn't care less. I can scrape pretty much tearout free and what it leaves behind sandpaper easily rectifies.

Managing to plane tearout free is about as much an accomplishment as figuring out a different way to turn the shop lights on each day. It just doesn't matter. It's so easily and unobtrusively gotten rid of as to not matter. Or leave a little. Give the hand something to find. Ahhh, HERE the wood protested. And the craftsman let it speak its mind. Leave a surprise or two for somebody to find.

I plane tearout free without skewing the plane. That includes on quartered beech - all of it, not just the nice pieces.

Holcombe does it on the other forum, he planes exactly as my article described. Check out his surfaces. It's not hard and it doesn't take long. I have no clue why anyone would want to leave it (without spending any additional time if removing it) except for the case where they can't manage to eliminate it. Which seems to be the case for a lot of people.

I mentioned above, and several people get cranked up when I mention larry's planes and single irons - they work. That's fine. they just aren't as capable as a common pitch double iron, except in the hands of novice or beginner users, perhaps the opposite is the case. I don't generally like to judge tools by the level of users...that kind of thing brings us planes with setscrews and such things.

I don't suggest that some average users are getting tearout with larry's planes, but rather larry himself...on a video he made. He actually says it out loud and suggests skewing the plane to remedy it. That's with a smoother, not a long plane or jack.

Hi David. Possibly a little unfair of you to only gauge the work of Clark & Williams. The following list continue to make single iron Bd planes. Apologies Derek for not including Veritas that make single iron Bu planes.


http://sauerandsteiner.blogspot.com.au/
http://www.hntgordon.com.au/
http://kapeldesigns.blogspot.com.au/
http://www.marcouplanes.com/
http://www.holteyplanes.com/
http://www.lazarushandplane.com/
http://www.billcarterwoodworkingplanemaker.co.uk/
http://www.andersonplanes.com/home.htm
http://www.phillyplanes.co.uk/

 

[D_W]

David, et al. with regard to Larry Williams' planes I'm simply referring to the number of users who've reported on forums their ability to plane tearout free with them. Tearout free is tearout free, unless for some reason we cannot take these reports at face value. File it in the 'everybody exaggerates on woodworking forums' file? Probably.

I don't plane tearout free and probably never will. Couldn't care less. I can scrape pretty much tearout free and what it leaves behind sandpaper easily rectifies.

Managing to plane tearout free is about as much an accomplishment as figuring out a different way to turn the shop lights on each day. It just doesn't matter. It's so easily and unobtrusively gotten rid of as to not matter. Or leave a little. Give the hand something to find. Ahhh, HERE the wood protested. And the craftsman let it speak its mind. Leave a surprise or two for somebody to find.

I plane tearout free without skewing the plane. That includes on quartered beech - all of it, not just the nice pieces.

Holcombe does it on the other forum, he planes exactly as my article described. Check out his surfaces. It's not hard and it doesn't take long. I have no clue why anyone would want to leave it (without spending any additional time if removing it) except for the case where they can't manage to eliminate it. Which seems to be the case for a lot of people.

I mentioned above, and several people get cranked up when I mention larry's planes and single irons - they work. That's fine. they just aren't as capable as a common pitch double iron, except in the hands of novice or beginner users, perhaps the opposite is the case. I don't generally like to judge tools by the level of users...that kind of thing brings us planes with setscrews and such things.

I don't suggest that some average users are getting tearout with larry's planes, but rather larry himself...on a video he made. He actually says it out loud and suggests skewing the plane to remedy it. That's with a smoother, not a long plane or jack.

Hi David. Possibly a little unfair of you to only gauge the work of Clark & Williams. The following list continue to make single iron Bd planes. Apologies Derek for not including Veritas that make single iron Bu planes.


http://sauerandsteiner.blogspot.com.au/
http://www.hntgordon.com.au/
http://kapeldesigns.blogspot.com.au/
http://www.marcouplanes.com/
http://www.holteyplanes.com/
http://www.lazarushandplane.com/
http://www.billcarterwoodworkingplanemaker.co.uk/
http://www.andersonplanes.com/home.htm
http://www.phillyplanes.co.uk/

They all make nice planes, and I'm excluding anything bevel up from my comments because bevel up planes don't work with cap irons. They don't work better than planes with a cap iron, either, they are forced to work in a fairly narrow envelope (one which is fine if someone only wants to smooth).

They can only approach the tearout protection of a double iron plane either by making a tiny mouth aperture (something on the order of 4 thousandths on a high angle plane) or higher angles than the double iron plane +10%.

The difference here is still a plane that works versus a plane that works better where better is the surface quality and the effort needed. Most people disregard effort because all they're doing is smoothing, and if someone only wants to smooth wood that's come off of a machine in good shape, the single iron design is fine. It's still not quite as good, but it's fine.

When you back up from there, even if you have a mouth aperture of something like 1 hundredth on a panel plane, it will not control tearout. That's problematic if you expect the panel plane to work with shavings that are an appreciable fraction of the hundredth. How do I know these measurements? I've made planes at them. When I learned to use the double iron properly, the panel plane became instantly more capable.

(some of the makers you mentioned do make double iron planes, though I don't know if they know how to use them).

I'd even submit that single iron planes may be better for rank beginners, especially of the type who are late in life and are looking to woodworker to relax and play, and not necessarily make much. Anyone dedicating themselves to hand tool use on a large level is far better off learning to use the planes that appear more pedestrian, but that in the end are more capable of completing a volume of work in a given time or effort envelope.

The market for any maker selling volume these days isn't experienced users, and none of the makers you mentioned knew how to use a double iron when they started, so I don't expect that the market will be filled with the most capable planes any time soon. It's too small of a market segment to make planes for.

 

[bridger]

....snip....

planes with setscrews and such things.

....snip....

The history of planemmaking is littered with dead end "innovations". Mostly they fade away into obscurity providing fodder for collectors and historians, but some small percentage survive. This includes such oddball mechanical contrivances as double irons and moveable frogs. Whether setscrews to retain cutter position prove to be worth their weight in cnc code or not remains to be seen in the long term. I have one shoulder plane with this feature. It has neither proved to be invaluable nor a nuisance, but that is not a plane that I put a lot of time on, so my sample of one is pretty much meaningless.

 

[swagman]

http://sauerandsteiner.blogspot.com.au/
http://www.hntgordon.com.au/
http://kapeldesigns.blogspot.com.au/
http://www.marcouplanes.com/
http://www.holteyplanes.com/
http://www.lazarushandplane.com/
http://www.billcarterwoodworkingplanemaker.co.uk/
http://www.andersonplanes.com/home.htm
http://www.phillyplanes.co.uk/[/quote]

They all make nice planes, and I'm excluding anything bevel up from my comments because bevel up planes don't work with cap irons. They don't work better than planes with a cap iron, either, they are forced to work in a fairly narrow envelope (one which is fine if someone only wants to smooth).

They can only approach the tearout protection of a double iron plane either by making a tiny mouth aperture (something on the order of 4 thousandths on a high angle plane) or higher angles than the double iron plane +10%.

The difference here is still a plane that works versus a plane that works better where better is the surface quality and the effort needed. Most people disregard effort because all they're doing is smoothing, and if someone only wants to smooth wood that's come off of a machine in good shape, the single iron design is fine. It's still not quite as good, but it's fine.

When you back up from there, even if you have a mouth aperture of something like 1 hundredth on a panel plane, it will not control tearout. That's problematic if you expect the panel plane to work with shavings that are an appreciable fraction of the hundredth. How do I know these measurements? I've made planes at them. When I learned to use the double iron properly, the panel plane became instantly more capable.

(some of the makers you mentioned do make double iron planes, though I don't know if they know how to use them).

I'd even submit that single iron planes may be better for rank beginners, especially of the type who are late in life and are looking to woodworker to relax and play, and not necessarily make much. Anyone dedicating themselves to hand tool use on a large level is far better off learning to use the planes that appear more pedestrian, but that in the end are more capable of completing a volume of work in a given time or effort envelope.

The market for any maker selling volume these days isn't experienced users, and none of the makers you mentioned knew how to use a double iron when they started, so I don't expect that the market will be filled with the most capable planes any time soon. It's too small of a market segment to make planes for.[/quote]

Hi David. What are your thoughts on those that already know how to set up double iron to combat tear out, but continue to push the case for Bu Planes.

Stewie;

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Apologies Derek for not including Veritas that make single iron Bu planes.

It's OK Stewie, I gave up reading this thread a while ago. :lol:

Regards from Perth

Derek

p.s. Veritas make not one but two lines of BD planes - both with chipbreakers. Keep up the good work.

 

[D_W]

Hi David. What are your thoughts on those that already know how to set up double iron to combat tear out, but continue to push the case for Bu Planes.

Stewie;

I guess it's a context issue. If you're doing mostly or only smoothing, it's hard to differentiate much. Derek is the only person I know of who would fit in that category, I doubt many other people who use BU planes would learn to properly set up a plane with a cap iron, because where are they going to learn to do it? In the context of dimensioning, it's a much bigger difference.

As I find people dimensioning by hand, like Brian Holcombe, I'm going to slip double iron planes into their hands, and I doubt many of them will continue to use their single iron planes (brian was using a low angle jack for rough work, which is a horrible choice).

Also, most of the things provided as simplified solutions (single irons with various bevels put on them) compare against things that were originally more simple. How many different setups do you have to have in bevel up planes to plane softwoods, hardwoods, figured woods, etc. With a stanley 4, it's one setup, exactly the same every time.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I have a wide variety of planes, and they all work well in different situations.

I still dimension by hand. I did so without machinery for over 20 years. That was when I purchased a tablesaw. I only purchased a power jointer/thicknesser about 5 years ago. A Jack, Jointer and Smoother still remain the standard tools, and often it is quicker to use the jack and jointer. But it is nice to use machines for the hard woods we have in WA (Western Australia).

As many are aware, the woods we have here are highly interlocked. I am not sure why. More so in WA, which is essentially a desert. The forests extend along the coastline below Perth, and this is home to the Jarrah I am so fond of using. The trouble is that much of it is gone, and what I use today is old roofing timbers ... dry and twisted .. harder than my wife's heart.

But I am not alone here, and many similar woods abound in Oz. It is not by chance that many woodworkers prefer handplanes with high cutting angles and tougher steels to withstand the abrasiveness of the woods. HNT Gordon are popular with 60 degree beds. They sell a lot of HSS blades.

Dimensioning wood is not a new skill among woodworkers, and was going on a long time before the double iron was understood. When something works, you use it. Not everyone is prepared to seek improvements or change their methods.

BU planes will continue to play a central role in much handtool woodworking. A criticism here (and elsewhere) is that they just act as smoothers. Well, you know that is fine. Not everything is about taking thick shavings, and there are planes for that. For many, a high cutting angle is going to be preferred simply because it is easier to set up, and it is reliable. The finish on hardwood is indistinguishable from a lower cutting angle on a double iron. Further, one thing a BU plan can do a whole lot better than a double iron is plane end grain, such as on a shooting board.

I also am happy to use a high cutting angle in a BD plane. Today I used a HNT Gordon Trying Plane. Yes, it takes finer shavings than, say a Stanley #7. However, on the edges I was shooting, this is exactly what I wanted, and the narrow boards really benefitted from the delicate touch this plane offers. I could have used a #7, but it was too large for the task.

Between all this are the common angle jacks and foreplanes that are both single- and double iron, and used for rough dimensioning.

And then, to complete the picture, I was planing drawer blades to which I had added a bowed section. This meant that I was planing the faces of two boards with grain running in opposite directions. A double iron was perfect to sort this out. Nil tear out.

Working with an unpredictable material such as wood requires that one be willing to try different methods to achieve the result one desires. There is no "right" answer. There is only what works. Efficiency comes in many disguises.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

I wonder why the low angle stanley planes didn't catch on when the users were professionals. And I wonder why the double iron planes wiped single iron planes off the map (despite costing more) until the market was users who on average are low on the capability scale.

Certainly there were single iron planes in catalogs, but they were to planes about the same in comparison as a soft arkansas is to a washita. A lower cost option that's not quite as good.

Only once people were unable to use a double iron plane correctly were there so many bold assertions about single iron planes (for quite some time, those assertions were about the superiority of a "simpler plane with fewer moving parts").

Certainly, the concept of a single iron plane is easier to understand for a buying segment that is mostly uninterested in learning a skill that will make them more productive. That means the current manufacturers don't have much incentive to do anything other than make their planes as easy as possible for beginners.

That's what makes me sour.

If it's about just playing, anything works fine. That's true.

 

[bridger]

I wonder why the low angle stanley planes didn't catch on when the users were professionals. And I wonder why the double iron planes wiped single iron planes off the map (despite costing more) until the market was users who on average are low on the capability scale.

Certainly there were single iron planes in catalogs, but they were to planes about the same in comparison as a soft arkansas is to a washita. A lower cost option that's not quite as good.

Only once people were unable to use a double iron plane correctly were there so many bold assertions about single iron planes (for quite some time, those assertions were about the superiority of a "simpler plane with fewer moving parts").

Certainly, the concept of a single iron plane is easier to understand for a buying segment that is mostly uninterested in learning a skill that will make them more productive. That means the current manufacturers don't have much incentive to do anything other than make their planes as easy as possible for beginners.

That's what makes me sour.

If it's about just playing, anything works fine. That's true.

There is an in-between here, which is the pro woodworker raised with machines. In that case, handtool skills have to be developed in a bit of a vacuum, and an easier plane is a good place to start. A block plane serves just fine here. This woodworker needs smoothers more than fore planes, and didn't necessarily learn to sharpen first. They may not see the need to progress to double irons at all, especially if they can't see the other side of the learning curve.

 

[D_W]

I wonder why the low angle stanley planes didn't catch on when the users were professionals. And I wonder why the double iron planes wiped single iron planes off the map (despite costing more) until the market was users who on average are low on the capability scale.

Certainly there were single iron planes in catalogs, but they were to planes about the same in comparison as a soft arkansas is to a washita. A lower cost option that's not quite as good.

Only once people were unable to use a double iron plane correctly were there so many bold assertions about single iron planes (for quite some time, those assertions were about the superiority of a "simpler plane with fewer moving parts").

Certainly, the concept of a single iron plane is easier to understand for a buying segment that is mostly uninterested in learning a skill that will make them more productive. That means the current manufacturers don't have much incentive to do anything other than make their planes as easy as possible for beginners.

That's what makes me sour.

If it's about just playing, anything works fine. That's true.

There is an in-between here, which is the pro woodworker raised with machines. In that case, handtool skills have to be developed in a bit of a vacuum, and an easier plane is a good place to start. A block plane serves just fine here. This woodworker needs smoothers more than fore planes, and didn't necessarily learn to sharpen first. They may not see the need to progress to double irons at all, especially if they can't see the other side of the learning curve.

i agree with that, if it's just a matter of minimal tasks, pretty much everything can do it.