Mathieson Coffin smoother with unusual rosewood sole

[Mr_P]

Never seen one of these before so I'm guessing its a much later addition, makes the ECE ones with lignum vitae soles look simple

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331759708849? ... EBIDX%3AIT

 

[D_W]

It looks like the joint was cut on a rotary machine where the center of the cutter was close to the middle of the plane.

That plane, by the way, has exceptionally finely done eyes. Just perfect in design and very crisp.

 

[bugbear]

To my eye, I think the sole is Lignum, going by the super-size shot of the sole.

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

It looks like the joint was cut on a rotary machine where the center of the cutter was close to the middle of the plane.

No - just longitudinal 'V' grooves in both pieces.

If they were rotary cut you'd need two perfectly matched cutters for the two halves!

BugBear

 

[Harbo]

A Lignum sole makes more sense.

Rod

 

[Mr_P]

I've found some Bailey Transitionals here with rosewood soles

http://eaiainfo.org/2015/03/14/stanley- ... om-planes/

but they are more ECE / box joint style.


I understand how the tapered finger joints were done on the Mathieson

its the side method thats impressing/ confusing me

 

[bugbear]

The pattern on the side what happens when you take a curved cross section through the 'V' shapes.

If the plane were a jack, with a rectilinear shape, there's be no pattern on the side.

BugBear

 

[JohnPW]

And the wavy lines on the sides of the ECE planes were done by cutting the v grooves at an angle, ie slightly not in line with the plane.

edit: I've checked, ECE actually use square grooves/comb joints. So you get the same pattern on the front and sides. It's Ulmia who use v grooves and the wavy pattern on the sides.

 

[Mr_P]

Thanks Chaps the penny has well and truly dropped.

 

[D_W]

The pattern on the side what happens when you take a curved cross section through the 'V' shapes.

Good point. I didn't look at enough pictures or think about it hard enough!!

I also thought the eye on the left was just the tops, but I reviewed the pictures last night and the eye on the right doesn't match!!

(I have a fascination with plane eyes because they are the last bit on wooden planes that I can't quite get the way I want them, and I've noticed a lot of very good makers have trouble making an eye that looks like the left side eye on the mathieson - excellent proportion and the bottom line does not try to incorporate a curve and then a straight line, it is instead all a gradual curve of good proportion).

 

[ED65]

(I have a fascination with plane eyes because they are the last bit on wooden planes that I can't quite get the way I want them, and I've noticed a lot of very good makers have trouble making an eye that looks like the left side eye on the mathieson - excellent proportion and the bottom line does not try to incorporate a curve and then a straight line, it is instead all a gradual curve of good proportion).

I presume these were traditionally cut by hand using a gouge and a chisel? I'm not at all surprised if that is the case that the two sides rarely match exactly due to the different angles of the workpiece relative to the dominant hand. Makes me wonder if it would be best to cut the left side leftie, something I've experimented with quite a bit on a much smaller scale.

Are you familiar at all with Voigt planes? His planes are very nicely done but I notice there's often a very slight asymmetry on some of the details. Harking back to a previous thread, his pieces also offer an interesting look at the question of whether you can differentiate between planed and sanded surfaces.

I must have a look later on at the eyes on my woodies to see how uniformly they're done. Of the few I own two are above average standard if I'm any judge and very crisply cut elsewhere, so I expect the eyes will be of similar high quality.

 

[D_W]

Steve and I are literally emailing back and forth about eyes over the last few days (we know each other because the two of us hashed through the details of making a *good* double iron plane out of wood a little more than a year ago).

When we worked our way through the details, we eliminated a lot of the myths attributable to double iron planes that are really the fault of out of shape planes (due to being worn out, or poorly made in the first place).

Steve makes a very tidy precise plane, which you need to do if you're selling planes. Mine are a bit more freehand and less consistent in terms of matching details, but no bones about it, it's not (the consistency) because steve isn't doing the work by hand. He just has more precise operations.

Symmetry is difficult, your're right. I have had planes that were symmetrical, and planes that were not. I just sold a griffiths on ebay last week that had identical eyes, left and right, and they were crisp and attractive. That's something I'm trying to get down.

(I cut them with a shallow gouge, and then scrape the gouge cuts flat to finalize the eyes. I'm not sure what was done historically, but I'd imagine it starts with a gouge so that the final result is flat. )

I'm never going to make enough planes for it to matter, but I would like to cut one perfect set of eyes!!

 

[MIGNAL]

Not sure perfect symmetry is even desirable on hand made objects. it just has to look symmetrical at a cursory glance, otherwise we are in danger of trying to replicate machine made objects. You may as well not bother, leave that to the machines. More important is the confidence of the cut and an eye for graceful lines, rather than symmetry alone.
I think i would use a double bevelled knife to cut those eyes. A gouge just seems like an awkward tool for that particular cut, at least it does to me.

 

[D_W]

Definitely not looking for perfection, as hasluck describes it (paraphrased) resulting in lifeless pieces. I just haven't quite gotten the proportions and crispness that i'd like. Symmetry at a glance, but not upon closer examination is what i'm shooting for.

The process lends itself to having very different eyes until you've cut a lot of them.

Perhaps I should've used the term symmetry at a glance.

I think there will be white collar customers who expect a hand made plane to look like it was roughed and finished mostly by machines as many of the bench planes were, which is one of the reasons I don't have much interest in building any planes for sale. the ones that I have made, I've either just given them away or asked for the cost of materials so as to be able to make them the way I'd like to make them.

Lucky is the person who makes things exactly the way they want them, and the buying public also agrees that such a thing is optimal.

 

[MIGNAL]

If you are making those cuts by eye alone it requires more eye hand co ordination, experience.
The alternative is to come up with a template that designates the mark on the top surface and the mark on the inner wall surface. Pencil it or knife mark. It then becomes a rather easy predictable cut, assuming a very sharp tool. Probably what I have heard termed a barrel knife or a double sided rounded bevel, to borrow that sharpening technique term. These aren't complex carving, they are straightforward cuts.

 

[D_W]

Yes, freehand - by eye. I don't make the same sized plane enough times in a row to come up with a marking template, though I do pencil a line for the forward part of the eye. The size of the eye will have something to do with the outside profile of the plane, the length of the mortise from the abutments and the thickness of the cheeks.

I cut them with a steep beveled japanese gouge because it provides good clearance. No clue what they were cut with historically, it is a quick process - just a couple of minutes for both including scraping. For someone making planes professionally, it would've been very quick, I'm sure.

I haven't kept many of my later planes, so I don't have pictures of the eyes on all of them. They're not as bad as I'm making them out, just not quite up to par with the eyes on that matheison's left eye. The eyes i've seen on early 1800s planes and earlier are all worse than mine...and some of the reproductions are, too - worse in proportion (larry's planes - old street tool - have various eyes on them, but the jack plane on his site right now has eyes that are quite nice and look like the later ones I've referred to).

 

[ED65]

Well I was in for a surprise. On the best of my coffin smoothers, by W. Greenslade of Bristol, the eyes are completely mismatched: one is a good 6mm (1/4") shorter than the other! It's hard to imagine how I didn't spot that large a discrepancy previously, but in my defence it was in shocking condition when I bought it so my attention was directed elsewhere :-"

 

[MIGNAL]

Oh dear! Throw it away!

Amati and Strad violins have beautifully cut scrolls. However some Guarneri's can be extremely wonky. Dosn't stop them being played and worth a few mil though.

 

[D_W]

So, then, when you carve a scroll, you're sure to let it be sloppy, too, just because you can find some examples that were sloppy?

I have planes with sloppy mismatched eyes, just like everyone else does. When the conversation goes toward it being ridiculous trying to do good work, then I'm out. It's just stupid.

 

[MIGNAL]

Not stupid at all. We can all pick fault, if we look closely enough but of course in the case of Krenov you didn't have to look closely at all!. It just becomes a matter of what one finds acceptable. There's a whole difference between the confident cut of an experienced craftsman who is working quickly and the attempts of the unskilled trying to find their way. I don't do perfect work and I'm not going to waste my time trying to. If it doesn't match your standards (or others) I'm not going to worry about it. I don't force anyone to buy what I make. It is what it is.