Paul Sellers says cap iron position doesn’t matter

[Adam W.]

It's not worth ignoring the past.

 

[D_W]

A chip breaker is not essential, look at all the old wooden mounding planes that work fairly well. That being said there are 3 things that make a plane work well assuming all the issues with sole flattening etc are good

• a sharp blade. If teh blade is sharp and you are planing with the blade it will work
• the mouth opening. This limits the size of shaving so when planing against the grain/wild grain the plane cant physically dig in as far
• the chip breaker. The tighter the chip breaker the shorter the shaving before it has to deflect

So if you want to take large shavings in soft wood with the grain. A sharp blade wide moth and chip breaker set back is fine. Try that on wild grain and you will end up with a mess

Moulding planes do the finish work after most of the profile volume is done by other planes or saws, and on wood that's selected to be ideal. I suspect the reason they don't have a cap iron is because each is used too little to justify the cost of a cap iron, and because we can work around any issues by setting aside the most ideal wood for mouldings.

You can do dimensioning work without cap irons, but in anything other than perfect wood, it takes twice as long and getting a clear even surface is a lot harder.

I tried to do dimensioning with single iron planes first because Larry Williams said they were better but even fas cherry is too much for them. It was agonizing and I resolved to figure out the cap iron or just quit making anything other than menial stuff for the house (closet shelves, etc.).

 

[D_W]

Admittedly, even out of fas lumber, I have trouble getting ideal cherry sticking to cut mouldings with a nice set of Griffiths 55 degree h&r's

 

[D_W]

My comment about Paul isn't a slight. Mastering planing isn't his business. His business is getting beginners started and drawing people to pay for classes and buy videos and subscriptions. He's good at that. A true master class in each area of woodworking would drive most students away.

 

[Adam W.]

Moulding planes do the finish work after most of the profile volume is done by other planes or saws, and on wood that's selected to be ideal. I suspect the reason they don't have a cap iron is because each is used too little to justify the cost of a cap iron, and because we can work around any issues by setting aside the most ideal wood for mouldings.

You can do dimensioning work without cap irons, but in anything other than perfect wood, it takes twice as long and getting a clear even surface is a lot harder.

I tried to do dimensioning with single iron planes first because Larry Williams said they were better but even fas cherry is too much for them. It was agonizing and I resolved to figure out the cap iron or just quit making anything other than menial stuff for the house (closet shelves, etc.).

Moulders don't have a cap iron because firstly, there isn't enough room and secondly, they don't need them anyway as the position and shape of the wedge pinning down the iron and directing the shaving into the side escapement negates the need.

 

[D_W]

They actually work better with a cap. There are two iron Japanese profile planes the size of our molders, and the second iron is fitted precisely to the blade even though the primary iron is plenty thick to work by itself. Making a double iron moulder in the late 1700s would've involved a loose second iron and a lot of extra cost when the planes only finish after much of the waste is already removed by other planes or means.

I have no idea what the Japanese use those profile planes for.

 

[Adam W.]

My English ones work fine and dandy as they are. I can't honestly see how a cap could make them any better.

I can create a complex sprung cornice in walnut just fine and all it needs is a little burnish at the end of the day.

Photo of offcut.

 

[Fergie 307]

Interested , not worked up about it. It keeps coming up in threads though and there's something weirdly ritualistic about the modern sharpening cult, the gurus and their occult procedures!
e.g. just a detail - it seems odd to me that so many have been persuaded to use water as a sharpening medium, in spite of its well known association with rust, not to mention the messiness they all complain about. Smacks of self punishment. At least it's not actually acidic. You can of course buy an anti rust additive - which means having to persuade people that oil is really bad for everything!
Not to mention another faction who have been persuaded to buy honing fluids more expensive than good whiskey, or camellia oil more suited to coiffure!
Keeps me entertained anyway.

like you I can't understand the idea of using water. The clue is in the name, oilstone.

 

[paulrbarnard]

like you I can't understand the idea of using water. The clue is in the name, oilstone.

I took a clue from my stones too. They are water-stones.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

like you I can't understand the idea of using water. The clue is in the name, oilstone.

I've used water stones for nearly forty years. I find them much less messy than oil, and haven't see a single speck of rust in that time. I'd rather get water on my wood than oil.

 

[Jacob]

Ha, ha. You must have missed, or forgotten, discussion of chatoyance in Cut & Dried at section 7.9.

Well it did ring a bell!

As to planes and the correct setting and preparation of their cap iron, aka chip breaker, if they have one, I prefer to remain an inactive observer in this thread. For that matter, I like to be no more than an observer of all plane sharpening, setting, and their use threads. Slainte.

Very wise!

 

[ivan]

Moulding planes usually have a steeper bedding angle than a bench plane, and the timber for moulding is usually selected for straight grain. No cap iron, means steeper bedding angle, for the same result quality wise.
There's no perfect universal setup, but understanding what's going on at the sharp edge, will point you in the right direction for a solution, should you need one.
The method of sharpening you choose is not important, but the bevel angle of the blade and cap iron is, as is also the cap iron position for difficult timbers.
Now on the wrong side of 75, I prefer bevel up and maybe cap iron fiddling on my smoother, as (for the same result as bevel down) it is easier to push forward and requires less downforce - oh! and what 's more I don't get tempted to buy a new plane.

 

[Jorny]

Paul Sellers has produced a lot of good videos and generally seems to make genuine and good recommendations. The problem is however that he has a way of dismissing everything that is done differently like he does. For instance he writes that: "In the overall scheme of things I might reason that in over 97% of cases, woodworkers cut the tails first and make the pins follow. So in this case, the tails predetermine that pins follow the tail in like fashion that form always follows function in the real world of non-fantasy craftwork."
This is obviously nonsense, for instance the 1934 classic "Hantverktets bok - Snickeri" a big beautiful reference book used by students at vocational schools studying to become cabinet makers states that dovetails are cut pins first. And the people writing that book were a lot more skilled furniture makers than Sellers.

Another thing is his convoluted and complicated way of making spoons which require a lot of tools to produce clumsy, impractical and rather ugly spoons.

 

[Daniel2]

My way or the highway

 

[Jacob]

Paul Sellers has produced a lot of good videos and generally seems to make genuine and good recommendations. The problem is however that he has a way of dismissing everything that is done differently like he does. For instance he writes that: "In the overall scheme of things I might reason that in over 97% of cases, woodworkers cut the tails first and make the pins follow. So in this case, the tails predetermine that pins follow the tail in like fashion that form always follows function in the real world of non-fantasy craftwork."
This is obviously nonsense, for instance the 1934 classic "Hantverktets bok - Snickeri" a big beautiful reference book used by students at vocational schools studying to become cabinet makers states that dovetails are cut pins first. And the people writing that book were a lot more skilled furniture makers than Sellers.

Another thing is his convoluted and complicated way of making spoons which require a lot of tools to produce clumsy, impractical and rather ugly spoons.

I've looked at lots of DTs in old work and can say that every DT in every drawer I've ever seen has been cut tails first and in pair together. It's immediately obvious when you dismantle them and put them together -. the DTs on opposite sides match exactly and must have been cut together. You can usually tell without dismantling, just by looking at the outside of a drawer.
It follows that they must have been cut first - if cut second they would have had to be matched to the pins already cut and would not be identical.
Also cutting the side DTs as a pair speeds the process.
What "Hantverktets bok - Snickeri" says is just another opinion. People get things wrong, proof readers miss things, then people follow them obediently and it becomes the norm.
Trade practice is often very different from notionally "correct" ways of doing things as found in books. In magazines it gets worse and they are 50% misinformation (amongst 75% advertising for things nobody needs!)

Another thing is his convoluted and complicated way of making spoons which require a lot of tools to produce clumsy, impractical and rather ugly spoons.

Oh well nobody is perfect!
I haven't looked at his spoons so can't comment, except that in general he isn't too hot on design in my opinion.

 

[Adam W.]

Checks Danish made draws....clearly pins first, as the tails don't match.

 

[Adam W.]

Snip/
What "Hantverktets bok - Snickeri" says is just another opinion. People get things wrong, proof readers miss things, then people follow them obediently and it becomes the norm.
Trade practice is often very different from notionally "correct" ways of doing things as found in books. In magazines it gets worse and they are 50% misinformation (amongst 75% advertising for things nobody needs!)Oh well nobody is perfect!

/snip

Have you not even considered for one moment that joiners in other countries or regions of the world might do things differently to the English ?

 

[Jorny]

What "Hantverktets bok - Snickeri" says is just another opinion. People get things wrong, proof readers miss things, then people follow them obediently and it becomes the norm.
Trade practice is often very different from notionally "correct" ways of doing things as found in books. In magazines it gets worse and they are 50% misinformation (amongst 75% advertising for things nobody needs!)

In Sweden the tradition among cabinet makers was to cut pins first. The book I am refering to was written from the point of view of trade practice.

Have you not even considered for one moment that joiners in other countries or regions of the world might do things differently to the English ?

Like Sellers, probably not.

 

[Jacob]

Have you not even considered for one moment that joiners in other countries or regions of the world might do things differently to the English ?

Of course they may do.
Nothing wrong with Sellers recommendations here though.

Like Sellers, probably not.

Should Sellers have embarked on a worldwide survey of DT practice and added appropriate footnotes?

The book I am refering to was written from the point of view of trade practice.

I'd check it out -I'd be interested to see a few trad Swedish made drawers, but they don't come my way that often!
I wouldn't be surprised if they often did it the same way as the Brits - it's slightly quicker and easier, but some would follow an instruction book instead - no harm done!
It's not that uncommon - for instance nearly all the books recommend 1/6 or 1/8 for DT angles but nobody told the trad joiners who more often than not do it randomly and quite differently

 

[Jacob]

Checks Danish made draws....clearly pins first, as the tails don't match.

Interesting. So the brits do it slightly more efficiently! I'd check a few more example before coming to a conclusion though.
In any case Sellers was talking about UK practice and was quite correct. The clincher being that it is slightly quicker.