Quartered and "Rift Sawn" Wood for Planes

[bugbear]

A Glossary of Wood, Stobart, 1979, 085442010X

(a reprint of WOOD magazine's glossary column, original book 1948):

Rift Sawn: Quarter Sawn, q.v. See Converting.

There appear to be many and various sequences for converting a log which differ in the amount of premium
radial material produced, labour involved, and amount of waste.

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

http://www.hardwooddistributors.org/blo ... wn-lumber/

 

[Trafalgar]

Riftsawn is a very specific term in the U.S.

That may be, but the US is not the whole world (despite what some residents appear to think), and this is a UK site.

BugBear

Well, this certainly puts the Scottish referendum this week in a context the rest of the world can understand.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

?

 

[Sheffield Tony]

I think that we can safely assume that, in the context of planemaking, rift sawn can be taken to mean sawn close to radially, in order that the sole and the sides remain substantially at right angles despite seasonal movement - sawn at 45 degrees to the annular rings would make no sense - it would maximise the dendency to lozenge !

But I'm intrigued by the wider question of wood selection and treatment for planemaking. Beech is no by any means the most stable of woods. I recall asking about this before, and the answer seems to be that it is all a compromise and beech was readily available in large, straight grained sections at a price that made wasteful cutting tolerable, perhaps its wear resistance is important too. I wonder how much the long seasoning helps; obviously it needs to be fully dry, but does it have any impact on seasonal movement ? How much does being saturated in linseed oil help ? There was some talk on a green woodworking forum about "cooking" greenwood bowls in hot linseed oil to try to reduce the movement during drying - I don't think it was a great success though. And how is it that infill planes work ? they seem to put a closely fitted piece of wood into a metal shell without problems of movement ?

 

[AndyT]

A couple of pages ago, the OP asked two questions. One was about the use of words, and I think we can now see that some specialist terms are used with different intended meanings. He also wrote:

Now with that in mind, did the planemakers of old use exclusively "rift sawn" stock with the growth rings running perfectly perpendicular, or did they use less perfect stock with the growth rings running at say 60 deg? All 4 wooden planes I own have their growth rings running pretty much perfectly perpendicular but I don't think this is a big enough sample to make a judgment from.
Should I pursue the incredibly expensive and hanrd-to-find "rift sawn" stock, or just settle with less perfect stock? I know the latter would probably be good enough as a user stock but do I really get less problems with perfect stock?

Sam

To try and offer a bit of an answer, I have gone to a nearby room where more than four samples are available and have taken a few pictures of bench planes. These are pretty well random, except that I chose planes where the grain orientation shows up clearly on the ends.

This is a Preston try plane:

the ends look like this

This Preston jack plane

is similar:

This Gleave badger plane does not show the classic arrangement of the previous two:

On this Cox and Luckman smoother the radius of the tree is not at right angles to the sole of the plane:

This I Sorby smoother

shows a similar pattern:

Turning to a couple of moving fillisters we see that this one by Mathieson has the centre of the tree at the top:

But this Gabriel

has the billet the other way up:

I'm not sure what conclusions one can draw from these. It's possible that the best planes have the orientation of the Preston try plane and that the others are 'ordinary' quality, but I cannot prove that - we really need a nineteenth century tool shop proprietor to show us his stock.

Maybe some more examples will help.

 

[JohnPW]

http://www.hardwooddistributors.org/blog/postings/what-is-rift-sawn-lumber/

It seems to contradict itself: wood with 45 degree grain and wood with 90 degree are both US "rift sawn lumber"!

In summary from reading this forum, in the UK at least it's:
90 degrees (more or less) is quarter saw,
45 degrees (more or less) is rift sawn,
less than about 35 is crown or plain sawn.
Regardless of sawing method.

 

[bugbear]

There seems to be a confusion (and a need for more jargon!!) between the technique of sawing and the grain of the resulting pieces.

It is not in doubt that the "through and through" sawing sequence produces "some" quarter sawn timber, so to use the sawing sequence as a synonym for the result is not sufficient.

BugBear

 

[J_SAMa]

But I'm intrigued by the wider question of wood selection and treatment for planemaking. Beech is no by any means the most stable of woods. I recall asking about this before, and the answer seems to be that it is all a compromise and beech was readily available in large, straight grained sections at a price that made wasteful cutting tolerable, perhaps its wear resistance is important too.

Thanks for bring that up. I just looked at the wood database and it says maple is more stable than beech. Wouldn't that make it better for planemaking? Now my local lumberyard doesn't have quartered maple but they might have the center pieces of plain sawn boards. It's a lot cheaper than beech too. Should I consider it?
Sam

 

[J_SAMa]

Andy,
Thanks a lot!! So I guess I can make it from anything with the growth rings running from about 45 to 90 deg.
What if I glued up a perfectly quartersawn piece and a less perfect one together? Is that slightly more stable than a solid piece of less perfect blank or am I just asking for trouble due to differential shrinking? They're asking more than 50 euros for perfectly quartered 70 mm square blanks... Could almost buy a plane with that money.

 

[AndyT]

Andy,
Could almost buy a plane with that money.

Over here at least, buying a really hopeless old plane (split cheeks, dog-chewed end, no iron) can be a good way to get a piece of nice solid old beech, properly selected for the purpose. Sorry that's not much comfort to you, away from all boot fairs etc, but might be of use to anyone following your thought process on making planes.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

You could use almost anything to make planes, even something like pine, plywood or MDF (I might draw the line at chipboard, though), but the stability and longevity of the finished plane would improve if the stock timber was harder and more stable, and a close grain would help to take fine detailing and crispness in such areas as the mouth.

The ideal plane-making wood would be very hard, very stable, very straight-grained, available in large sizes, and if you're doing it commercially, available in large quantities and available cheaply. Such a wood probably doesn't exist. Probably the nearest to 'perfect' woods are box, cormier (wild service tree), lignum vitae and similar, but they're not available in large sizes or large quantity, so acceptable compromises like beech were used instead (except for small quantities of very small planes, or as inserts for wear resistance in moulding planes and the like).

I can think of no reason why maple wouldn't make a very good plane; indeed, any hard, close-grained, wood sould serve well; even the stability problem could be overcome to a great extent by using a laminated construction. Try to balance the laminations such that the likely movement of any one element is cancelled by the likely movement of others, so a plane body of two halves would be best if the grain direction was equal but opposite on the two halves.

 

[Corneel]

You forget one thing: Easy(ish) to work. Plenty of woods are stable and hard and available etc, but are a bear to work. Padoek for example. I have a big chunk, but it's a bit too difficult to work for a traditional plane. Beech is perfect in that regard.

 

[bugbear]

But I'm intrigued by the wider question of wood selection and treatment for planemaking. Beech is no by any means the most stable of woods. I recall asking about this before, and the answer seems to be that it is all a compromise and beech was readily available in large, straight grained sections at a price that made wasteful cutting tolerable, perhaps its wear resistance is important too.

Thanks for bring that up. I just looked at the wood database and it says maple is more stable than beech. Wouldn't that make it better for planemaking? Now my local lumberyard doesn't have quartered maple but they might have the center pieces of plain sawn boards. It's a lot cheaper than beech too. Should I consider it?
Sam

Ooh - I can answer that one; YES!

Bugbear

 

[woodbrains]

You forget one thing: Easy(ish) to work. Plenty of woods are stable and hard and available etc, but are a bear to work. Padoek for example. I have a big chunk, but it's a bit too difficult to work for a traditional plane. Beech is perfect in that regard.

Hello,

Can I have your Padauk then? :lol:

The grain is often rowed, so a nuisance to plane, but Padauk is blooming stable. Made many a Krenov style plane from Padauk.

Worth the effort methinks if you want a good stable plane, and has a waxy tendency, too, so good for slick soles!

Mike.

 

[Corneel]

Good, I'll give it a try then. I'd like to try my hand at making some traditional morticed planes. No hurry though, I have plenty of other things on my plate. The Padauk won't run away.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Come to think of it, I suppose there are (at least) two different approaches to wooden plane making:

1) You need a plane for a particular duty, and decide to make one rather than buy one.

2) You are making an accurate reproduction of a plane for historical research purposes.

If approach 1, then the advice given above holds - use the best available material that you either have to hand or can obtain fairly easily. If approach 2, then the whole exercise fails if you don't use historically accurate material, and you may have to go to great expense, time and trouble to obtain it - far more trouble than the actual work of making the plane. There isn't much sense in going to all that trouble and expense if you just need a plane for a job, as in approach 1.

 

[Corneel]

I don't know th esituation in England, but overhere it is hard to find a wooden plane which isn't completely worn out. All little details which make or break the perfect plane are usually gone. I also subscribe to the school that nothing worthwhile has been invented in the last 200 years (regarding planes) and such old ones are really rare, so one has to make once own planes. :lol:

Now I just have to do what I preach of course. I have QS beech. I have plane irons. What's keeping me back?

 

[woodbrains]

Come to think of it, I suppose there are (at least) two different approaches to wooden plane making:

1) You need a plane for a particular duty, and decide to make one rather than buy one.

2) You are making an accurate reproduction of a plane for historical research purposes.

If approach 1, then the advice given above holds - use the best available material that you either have to hand or can obtain fairly easily. If approach 2, then the whole exercise fails if you don't use historically accurate material, and you may have to go to great expense, time and trouble to obtain it - far more trouble than the actual work of making the plane. There isn't much sense in going to all that trouble and expense if you just need a plane for a job, as in approach 1.

Hello,

It is fairly common to need a plane for a particular job, and making one is the best option, if you can't wait indeterminate lengths of time for the right old woodie to turn up. But I think (for me anyway) if I'm going to make one, it might as well look nice too. I could get something to work well and look really rough and ready, just to get the job done, but I don't like putting in some effort to make something that looks bad. Obvoiusly it won't suit every plane type, such as moulding planes, but the Kreonv style plane is dead quick to make, works as well as any, and looks nice on the tool shelf, next to the other tools. I have never made a nice morticed coffin smoother and the like, because I have lots of working planes that do those tasks. Maybe one day I'll do one for the sake of it. But for anyone who needs a working plane, without the time to commit to a morticed woodie, I fully recommend the Krenov style. I made some round bottoms in Padauk (funnily enough) and they look and work great. You can make a few in a day, if needed.

Mike.

 

[MIGNAL]

I don't know th esituation in England, but overhere it is hard to find a wooden plane which isn't completely worn out. All little details which make or break the perfect plane are usually gone. I also subscribe to the school that nothing worthwhile has been invented in the last 200 years (regarding planes) and such old ones are really rare, so one has to make once own planes. :lol:

Now I just have to do what I preach of course. I have QS beech. I have plane irons. What's keeping me back?

Actually old damaged wooden Planes are an excellent source for materials. Quite often the blades and chipbreakers can be salvaged too. I've built a few Planes using the wood from long jointers. Anything that has a crack on the usual cheek area is suitable. You can easily get a smoother size (laminated type) from a damaged or very worn jointer and of course the wood has been very well seasoned.