How to store Handplanes?

[swagman]

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

Hi Derek. Would I be right in suggesting Bu planes are less prone to chatter, as a result of their lower direction force .

On the subject of camber, I come across this article that might interest you.

Therefore, I sharpen more camber into a blade for a low angle bevel-up plane than for a bevel-down plane to achieve the same functional amount of camber. http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/297 ... lane-irons

regards Stewie;

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

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.

David, I think that you expect too much, and your conclusions are too critical.

The reason that the low angle Stanley planes did not take off is two-fold:

Firstly, the materials from which the planes were build - grey iron - was too fragile, and the thin beds had a reputation for chipping. No one wants a plane that has a short life span. Planes made today are quite different in this respect.

Secondly, low angle planes were known as block planes (regardless of their length). The name comes from planing end grain, which was their forte given that they had a low cutting angle. It was not until the new incarnation of these planes (by LN and LV) that there was any appreciation that a high bevel angle could turn them into planes for face grain (as well as end grain).

Further to the latter point, the high bevel angle made cambering of the blade difficult. I recall debating this with Larry Williams on Knots nearly a decade ago. He was/is super critical of these planes - frankly, he is black-and-white about his likes and dilikes. We all know what he likes. (Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is what is happening at this time). Anyway, I deveoped an easy way to camber the blades for bevel up planes, and demonstrated that they are very capable - if you choose ( but not my preference) - of using them as scrub or jack planes, if you so choose.

The argument that they work best with a fine shaving is the same argument that you must apply to anyone who planes with a wide, straight blade or single iron. The other criticism is that there is a wear bevel on the wrong side of the blade. That is true to some extent, but it is more theoretical than a practical limitation - it all depends on the wood one uses, and the compromises one decides on for the task needed.

There are pros and cons to all tools. Take the best and use it. Ignore the what does not work for you.

Regard from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

I think the wear bevel thing was overblown. When that came up, I had to lee valley planes at the time, and I was perfectly happy with them except for the handles caused me significant wrist pain in heavy work (if I liked the type, that would've been easy enough to solve).

Bridger sums it up well, there's really two cases here (aside from someone who just wants to simplify their kit, if the latter is the case, there's really nothing simpler than a single stanley 7 and stanley 4, but someone meeting bridger's description is unlikely to learn to use a cap iron.

The other side of the coin is a user like brian holcombe, who is not using power tools. Perhaps there are some on here like that, too. What I say will resonate with him.

(I didn't like cambering the BU planes, either, but if they were the only thing I had, I'd get used to that without issue - I tossed all of that stuff when I found how easily end grain planes with a continental smoothing plane or a stanley 4 - that is 900-1500 hardness woods).

Part of this whole thing is kayfabe, part of it shoot (I borrow those from wrestling terms). As in, I'm pushing a gimmick a little bit but in reality, I believe it's the case. I do believe that LN and LV are pretty inept about the cap iron. I have no clue what LV's official position is (and you know I think highly of Rob), but I know LN still has no clue. I'm starting to believe that LN lucked out copying stanley planes. they're nice folks, but I am just baffled by their advice.

(I don't really know larry other than the forums, other than to know he's the only person certain of what he thinks of double irons. I can disprove all of it pretty easily, but he's closer to reality than LN. I also know that he loves to grade his oilstones all the time with diamond hones, and that is something i don't get at all. I also like when he tells george what's what. It's like watching billy ripken try to tell babe ruth how to hit for power)

 

[Jacob]

I..... there's really nothing simpler than a single stanley 7 and stanley 4, ....

Yes there is - a single Record 5 1/2. Standard issue for everybody in the bad old days and all you needed!

 

[David C]

Odd then that Veritas more or less copied the L-N improved cap iron?

David C

 

[David C]

And I totally agree with Jacob, 5 1/2 is by far the best all round plane.

David C

 

[Jacob]

David we must stop agreeing like this people are beginning to talk!

 

[G S Haydon]

Odd then that Veritas more or less copied the L-N improved cap iron?

David C

David they have and have not . The BD plans they have been selling for years is a pressed style rather than the machined type cap iron. It's nicely made and shaped.

I'm not sure about the custom stuff they offer but I'd assume it's a machined item as is there aftermarket one.

 

[David C]

True enough Graham, so did L-N.

The point I am trying to make is that the improved version works perfectly well.

I have used it for a number of years and can see no disadvantages, only advantages.

David

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I reviewed the LV chipbreaker, comparing it with the LN and Stanley chipbreakers 2 years ago:

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... eaker.html

Small but important differences.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

I still am getting a chuckle that anyone thinks a cap iron designed by people who don't even know what it's for is an improvement. I did like many other amateurs and at one point had all "improve" design irons and cap irons, but learned over time that whatever is improved must be beginners territory. There is no functional improvement in any of the improved designs. The only thing the improved designs show is that the makers weren't smart enough to understand what they were redesigning.

I don't know what lv does, but ln's traveling sideshow sales force still tells people that the cap iron is there to stiffen the iron. Anyone been to an ln event where they showed how to set it? I doubt it, because you couldn't even set it right on some of their planes, the hole was drilled in the wrong place. I guess that's somehow an improvement, as well as replacing the very good curved front with a flat bevel that their customers can dent. The Stanley style is an ideal shape to break chips right from the start.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I still am getting a chuckle that anyone thinks a cap iron designed by people who don't even know what it's for is an improvement. I did like many other amateurs and at one point had all "improve" design irons and cap irons, but learned over time that whatever is improved must be beginners territory. There is no functional improvement in any of the improved designs. The only thing the improved designs show is that the makers weren't smart enough to understand what they were redesigning.

I don't know what lv does, but ln's traveling sideshow sales force still tells people that the cap iron is there to stiffen the iron. Anyone been to an ln event where they showed how to set it? I doubt it, because you couldn't even set it right on some of their planes, the hole was drilled in the wrong place. I guess that's somehow an improvement, as well as replacing the very good curved front with a flat bevel that their customers can dent. The Stanley style is an ideal shape to break chips right from the start.

I assume that is typo - as far as I am aware Lee Valley (LV) does not do "travelling sideshows".

David, we have two separate issues here. The first is that Lie-Nielsen (LN) may be slow in picking up on the area of setting a chipbreaker (which I do believe they are), however that does not make the chipbreaker obsolete.

I do in part agree with you that the design of the LN and LV chipbreakers can be improved (what can't), but the area that needs to be improved is the angle of the leading edge - it needs to be 45 degrees rather than 25 degrees. However, the LN and LV chipbreakers can be easily modified o meet this criterion.

Beyond this they are better than the Stanley. Why? Because the flex in the Stanley chipbreakers I have experienced (at least as many as you) makes them harder to set up.

Anyway, I am not going to repeat the points in my review. The point of my posting here, now, is that you have to do better than rhetoric - you need to explain yourself, offer something tangible, reasons that make sense ...

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

Derek, I have never had any problem with the spring that you're talking about, and I've been through I don't know how many cap irons. I have had one improved design cap iron that is problematic because as you tighten the screw, the entire cap iron backs away from the edge.

But never a stanley cap iron that moves. I have also not ever heard anyone else mention that they had a problem with that, so I have no clue what you're doing.

The one situation where I have had caps move in odd ways is old woody irons (that have some damage to them, some tuning is necessary to make sure the area near the slot and the bottom of the screw don't have too much lateral grip to each other) and some infills (where the cap iron hole was not centered).

I also had the aforementioned (in this thread) problem with a millers falls plane where the lever cap wasn't long enough for the end to sit on the top of the cap iron hump. That was a problem, but that has never happened on a bailey plane I've used.

If your stanley cap iron is damaged or rusted and has the problem you're describing because the screw grips ,that's one thing. the spring itself has never caused me any issue. Let's remember who figured this stuff out in a vacuum, too, and before there was any kato and kawai video. It took me less than two weeks to have better results from a stanley plane than I could get from my almost newly made 4 thousandth mouth 55 degree infill - I was disgusted with that! It wasn't LN or LV who figured out how to communicate setting the cap, but I have been dealing with peoples opinions - people who know less about it and how it was likely used than I do, both then and now.

My comment above was to mean that I don't know what LV tells customers (wherever they meet them), but I know what LN tells customers. I haven't ever heard anything about LV other than that I don't believe some of their research group believes it's possible to use the cap iron to control tearout in a practical way. And I didn't hear that from Rob, of course. It's a shame that people like that would be advising.

I don't generally think lowly of LN, they've done well by me. I just think they have no clue when it comes to some things. They can certainly make a neatly made flat and square plane, they just know less about using their planes than I do. If they don't like that sentiment, that's tough. I can only assume that constantly dealing with beginners sometimes makes people cater to them rather than "expecting a little bit more", as you suggested above.

 

[D_W]

I..... there's really nothing simpler than a single stanley 7 and stanley 4, ....

Yes there is - a single Record 5 1/2. Standard issue for everybody in the bad old days and all you needed!

That must be an English thing. A friend's father passed away (he's English, as was his father, of course) and he brought back his tools. A carborundum stone, a washita stone, some card scrapers, a couple of shaves, a stanley 4 and a Record 5 1/2.

I think he threw away the stones, kept the 4 and gave me the record 5 1/2 to refurbish and refuses to take it back. Not a very sentimental guy!!

I'd still rather have a 4,5 and 7 if I were using metal bench planes and working wood through all phases from rough.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I have had one improved design cap iron that is problematic because as you tighten the screw, the entire cap iron backs away from the edge.

David, I have gone through many LV and LN chipbreakers, and never had that happen.

But I do know what you are referring to. By coincidence, I was setting up an old Mujingfang woodie today. It has a double iron (HSS blade), chipbreaker more typical of a woodie version, and set with a wedge. I had an awful time getting the chipbreaker to stay put. It would back away from the edge of the blade as the screw was tightened.

Basically, the problem was the screw, not the chipbreaker. I placed a small steel washer between the chipbreaker and the blade, tightened down onto that, and the chipbreaker stayed put. The problem was that the underside of the screw was slightly out of square. After this mod, the plane produced the shavings expected of a closed up chipbreaker.

I have the opposite problem with the Stanley. Either the thin steel "squashes" and stretches - pushing the leading edge forward - or, the lever cap can do the same. The thicker steel of the LN and LV does not flex at the end of the chipbreaker, which means that it is reliable when setting the distance from the back of the blade. There is flex in these chipbreakers, but this is akin to a wavy washer - it just tightens around the screw.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

If your stanley cap iron is damaged or rusted and has the problem you're describing because the screw grips ,that's one thing. the spring itself has never caused me any issue. Let's remember who figured this stuff out in a vacuum, too, and before there was any kato and kawai video. It took me less than two weeks to have better results from a stanley plane than I could get from my almost newly made 4 thousandth mouth 55 degree infill - I was disgusted with that! It wasn't LN or LV who figured out how to communicate setting the cap, but I have been dealing with peoples opinions - people who know less about it and how it was likely used than I do, both then and now.

David, a bit more.

That the Stanley works is not proof that it is better. It just works. But the LN and LV works better (when the leading edge is modified).

Bringing in emotions says that you are no longer in an objective state of mind.

As far as I can tell, LN have not altered their policy of high angle frogs to control tearout. LV, on the other hand, could simply have offered a series of high angle frogs and not included the chipbreaker - since that is how the planes were designed to be back in 2011/2 when they were conceived. However, LV decided to include the chipbreaker option, and this is what is available on the new Custom planes. They may be used with- or without the chipbreaker.

As an aside, when I purchased the LV Custom #4 smoother, I specified a 42 degree frog (this is in my review). It was a statement that this plane was be dedicated to be used with the chipbreaker. That was a commitment to my belief in the chipbreaker as a means of controlling tearout.

Lastly, a plane just for you (LN #3 which I modified by adding a #4 handle) :lol:

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Cheshirechappie]

By coincidence, I was setting up an old Mujingfang woodie today. It has a double iron (HSS blade), chipbreaker more typical of a woodie version, and set with a wedge. I had an awful time getting the chipbreaker to stay put. It would back away from the edge of the blade as the screw was tightened.

Basically, the problem was the screw, not the chipbreaker.

I had a similar problem once with a cap-iron screw. It kept moving the cap-iron when it was being nipped up. The problem turned out to be a very small burr on the underside of the screw head at it's periphery - a little gentle attention with a needle file cured it completely.

 

[D_W]

By coincidence, I was setting up an old Mujingfang woodie today. It has a double iron (HSS blade), chipbreaker more typical of a woodie version, and set with a wedge. I had an awful time getting the chipbreaker to stay put. It would back away from the edge of the blade as the screw was tightened.

Basically, the problem was the screw, not the chipbreaker.

I had a similar problem once with a cap-iron screw. It kept moving the cap-iron when it was being nipped up. The problem turned out to be a very small burr on the underside of the screw head at it's periphery - a little gentle attention with a needle file cured it completely.

Thank you, my point exactly.

 

[G S Haydon]

No worries David C, I had almost assumed they'd come with the machined style but was actually happy enough to see they were the stamped type.

 

[D_W]

That the Stanley works is not proof that it is better. It just works. But the LN and LV works better (when the leading edge is modified).

This is the part that's incorrect. I'm not making the statement that the stanley is better because it works. I'm making the statement that it is a better design, period. You seem to be in a very small minority of folks who have learned to use it and actually had it be trouble to set.

Cheshirecappie's post above describes the only kind of thing that would cause a problem.

Otherwise, to advocate LN/LV's type is a position that can only be made by someone who either has a small sample not representative of the overall group, or based on someone who is not at a point where they can appreciate the merits of the original:
* better fit to the lever cap with more spring
* it actually always gets to the edge of the iron in every plane
* as set up stock, it already has a desirable profile on it

When you couple with it that the "improved" designs often don't get to the irons, even though they are not a better design to start with, in practice, many aren't even usable and the user has to go to the trouble to request another. Again, because the people who designed "improved" don't even know what entry level capability is.