Alf":1yi7ka1z said:
bugbear":1yi7ka1z said:
Chris Schwarz? He's been musing on scrubs
recently. Mind you, it's getting hard to tell where Chris ends and Adam begins these days. :lol:
Cheers, Alf
I ain't sayin'. [-X
But the point is that the designations we use are artificial, or to say it another way, they are merely a way to categorize planes. The problem is when we take these designations and ascribe fixed attributes (such as function) to them.
This applies, for instance, to the current issue of what is a scrub? Or, is a LA plane is only for end-grain work? Pronouncements of function as defined by Stanley is a tenuous argument at best. At its worse, it serves to propagate that someone must have one (or more
) of each plane in order to do various tasks.
Too, we often take fettling to heights that historically may never occurred and then inform others that this is a must to get "top" performance from a plane. This I think is false, but aside from that it puts on edge a person new to the slippery slope. Not only do they feel inundated with choices of planes, but frustrated by their seeming lack of fettling abilities.
Another area I feel we often go wrong is assigning status to perceived qualities of various maker's planes, or even within their own various lines of planes. For instance, Dina recently received a Handyman as a gift. Now, most people would definitely say it is unworthy of consideration as a "serious" user plane. Why? Are they of lesser build quality than a previous generation had available? Sure they are. But will it do the work at hand? Yep, it will. Most likely for a few more generations to come.
Oh will someone tell me to take a pill and go lie down in order to get me off the soapbox? What's that? Ok. I'll go.
Mike
Edit. Added the following link to Dina's Handyman. The pictures show the plane as received with just a moderately sharpened blade (200 grit) and a fairly opened mouth.
Dina's Handyman
