Philip Marcou.

[Paddy Roxburgh]

Oh fer Gawd's sake ..... this thread is about 'Infill plane makers of modern times'. If people want to have a spat about cap-irons, or have a dig at other posters, would they please confine themselves to a more appropriate thread? Or start a thread of their own?

Mod Thread Edit:- Agreed, this thread split from "Infill plane makers of modern times." as being none relevant to the Collection of Plane Maker references

Maybe we should have sticky thread for "arguing about cap irons", or maybe a whole section, or even an Arguing about Cap Irons forum, it could be split into effectiveness, ancient history, modern history, who said what to who on the internet, comparisons of different makes etc. Posting rules should be that all points must be repeated constantly and all posters must become increasingly irritated with each other.

I dunno, just putting it out there
Paddy

 

[D_W]

Put up a subgroup. I'm all for it! I'm kind of tired of arguing about it, I wish everyone would do like Custard and just do it.

Look on the bright side. Since we started talking about cap irons, it's distracted people from arguing about sharpening.

 

[Trafalgar]

The L-N planed all species in both directions flawlessly per the review.

I definitely didn't see a stanley mention, then. Just the LN one (though I only skimmed the article).

If a stanley isn't set right, certainly it can chatter and give the user an idea that the problem is the plane and not the set. If it's set right, you can't push it hard enough to get it to chatter (or chatter and tear or ripple a surface).

A 4 was mentioned in Derek's narrative and a 4 1/2 in one of his colleague's narratives that contributed to the review.

I don't recall anything about chatter -- just tearout.

Maybe you should lay hands on some gnarly Jarrah and give it a go. One thing is clear from the review, however, is that the Lie Nielsen plane handled it in any direction. This is not in dispute. Perhaps they were guilty of taking too thin a shaving for your taste but that's about it. Maybe Derek would care to comment.

 

[D_W]

The L-N planed all species in both directions flawlessly per the review.

I definitely didn't see a stanley mention, then. Just the LN one (though I only skimmed the article).

If a stanley isn't set right, certainly it can chatter and give the user an idea that the problem is the plane and not the set. If it's set right, you can't push it hard enough to get it to chatter (or chatter and tear or ripple a surface).

A 4 was mentioned in Derek's narrative and a 4 1/2 in one of his colleague's narratives that contributed to the review.

I don't recall anything about chatter -- just tearout.

Maybe you should lay hands on some gnarly Jarrah and give it a go. One thing is clear from the review, however, is that the Lie Nielsen plane handled it in any direction. This is not in dispute. Perhaps they were guilty of taking too thin a shaving for your taste but that's about it. Maybe Derek would care to comment.

Certainly, a thin shaving should work with any plane without tearout. I don't know where to get jarrah, but I'd certainly plane it if it was readily available.

I do have some wood that can't be reasonably planed, though, and the characteristic always seems to be the same - really dry and soft earlywood that crumbles when the iron hits it. I haven't encountered any wood that is very hard (without that - that is, the wood is hard in the early wood and late wood) that tears out when planing, and so can't imagine that curly jarrah would be a problem for a stanley plane with a cap iron, or with a 1 thousandth shaving and the cap set off.

(I still do recall the feeling of a stanley plane with the cap set far off...it makes the plane feel less solid in the cut, for sure, and the want for a heavier and more solid feel - without understanding the cap iron - is satisfied by stuff like LN and LV).

 

[Trafalgar]

"Certainly, a thin shaving should work with any plane without tearout."

I imagine that it would be impossible to count the number of past and present makers of fine furniture who swear by this approach (cap iron or not) when making final finishing passes on components of a commissioned piece. It's probably not the stage where one would decide to make up lost time, or where a craftsman would look back on a less than financially successful commission and pin the blame on the amount of time spent making last plane passes -- "if I'd just dialed it in a few thousandths thicker I could have made money on this job..." Ridiculous, no?

 

[Corneel]

What a tiresome discussion.

 

[Trafalgar]

Oh brother... pot, meet black kettle.

 

[D_W]

"Certainly, a thin shaving should work with any plane without tearout."

I imagine that it would be impossible to count the number of past and present makers of fine furniture who swear by this approach (cap iron or not) when making final finishing passes on components of a commissioned piece. It's probably not the stage where one would decide to make up lost time, or where a craftsman would look back on a less than financially successful commission and pin the blame on the amount of time spent making last plane passes -- "if I'd just dialed it in a few thousandths thicker I could have made money on this job..." Ridiculous, no?

If only they had you there to teach them how to work, maybe they wouldn't have been so misguided and bought all of those double iron planes.

 

[Trafalgar]

I think double iron planes are great. I think my shop broom is great too (I splurged on a good one). And my shop mat -- nice on the feet. I am most happy with a new light bulb I found the other day -- really nice, pleasing light.

I'm good. You?

 

[Corneel]

Oh brother... pot, meet black kettle.

When even I think it is tiresome, that should tell you something.

 

[Trafalgar]

Why continue accessing and reading the thread, then?

 

[D_W]

You?

I feel like I've been having a conversation with an English major .....about what's important in Calculus.

Or worse...it reminds me of a conversation that I had with a Philosophy major who thought that no matter what he said, it was right because Philosophy defines itself as a higher order knowledge than practical subjects like Physics or Mathematics. Lots of straw scenarios that made it clear he had no clue about Mathematics. But he was sure of himself, nonetheless.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I thought it was time to have a look to see if the handbags were out yet ... :lol:

 

[Trafalgar]

Then there's the old saw David about the specialist who knows more and more about less and less until he functionally knows nothing. After you build that box you seemed destined to put yourself in, who are you going to ask to nail it shut? Make sure the wood is planed with virtually no tear out first, though.

 

[richarddownunder]

Bit of a shame that Philip Marcou's name heads this thread. As mentioned in another, I have only seen some of his work once but thought the planes were of a remarkable standard, handmade tools of beauty and quality that you don't find often.

Cheers
Richard

BTW. Just looked at Derek's review. One thing I noticed was the comment about the different mass of the planes in the test and the thought that the heavier smoother (Philip's) was more easily controlled, if I read it right. I have seen other folk (notably Paul Sellers) suggest that the extra weight just makes your arms ache and nothing more. I personally prefer heaver planes and find the moderately heavy Clifton's better than lighter Stanley's. Is that just a matter of individual preference too? I suppose it must be as light wooden planes such as those made by ECE also work - so does it just come down to technique?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hi Richard

I agree that picking on Philip is a disservice to his reputation. He makes superb planes. The plane in question was the best I had ever used at that time. However, it also represented an era when high cutting angles and mass ruled. The high cutting angle is self-explanatory, but one may be reminded that setting the chipbreaker was not on my horizon at the time. High mass also made a difference with hard woods since the plane would have no tendency to come off the board. Once in motion, the mass was converted into momentum. I would not want to plane all day with a large and heavy smoother such as this, however a few finishing strokes, especially on large panels, are no effort at all.

Some thoughts ...

In recent years I have come to prefer common angle BD planes - actually, I have always preferred them. the reason for BU planes was that they could create a high cutting angle in a plane with low gravity and a low centre of effort. This made them far, far less work to push than the equivalent high cutting angle in a BD plane with a high centre of effort. It was the reason I found a 55 degree LN #4 1/2 too much work .. but, when the cutting angle was reduced to 45 degrees, the plane became viable able (with the chipbreaker for interlocked grain). The bronze #4 1/2 feels like it weighs about the same as the Marcou, however in a BD plane with a wide blade, this mass becomes an impediment.

My favourite smoothers currently are a LN#3 (45 degree bed) and a Veritas Custom #4 (42 degree bed), both lighter and more nimble planes than the Marcou. Their performances are as good as the Marcou when set up with the chipbreaker (although the Marcou is less finicky to set up - by a mile).

The performance equalising does not mean that BU planes, such as the LV BUS (12 degree bed) and the infill smoother I build (25 degree bed) are passe. They continue to work very, very well. It is just that I used BU planes for their high cutting angle, but I preferred BD because I could freehand sharpen their blades (the BU need a honing guide). I built my infill BU because it does not need a honing guide (35 degree bevel on a 25 degree bed = 60 degree cutting angle). However, I do see the results of a low cutting angle on softer woods. High cutting angles do not leave as much gloss. On hardwoods I am pressed to tell a difference. After a finish there is none.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

Marcou must be shaking his head in disbelief. Dumbstruck I'd imagine. I honestly feel sorry for him.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Marcou must be shaking his head in disbelief. Dumbstruck I'd imagine. I honestly feel sorry for him.

What Charles' part in this thread here has been all about ...

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

You said above: "High cutting angles do not leave as much gloss."

Really? That doesn't seem to be the conclusion you drew in your review, recalling that a 45* bevel down plane, the LN, was part of the process:

On a more subjective note, the Marcou, with its greater mass, planed with the greater ease. There was less sensation of resistance, and a greater sense of control. There also appeared to be a qualitative superiority evident in both the shine of the wood surface and the gloss produced on the shavings.
Subjectively, in order of merit, I would place the Marcou, then the BUS, then the LN-plus-Clifton iron. I shall be repeating these exercises when the replacement LN iron arrives. It is sufficient to record that all the planes were capable of managing all the woods here, which was no mean feat.

Below is the Marcou smoother planing the Tasmanian Blackwood. It left a flawless, glassy finish – regardless of which direction the grain ran.

 

[AndyT]

Charles (and anyone else if they are still reading this) I've been posting on this forum for nearly nine years and have made over 6000 posts.
I'm sure that if anyone wanted to search back through them they would find that I have learned things that I used not to know. I have also forgotten things that I used to know.
I may even have been inconsistent. It's a human failing for which I can only offer a grovelling apology.