Record 077A plane.

[Anonymous]

I tried Titebond once. It made a horrible mess in my glue pot! :lol:

To clarify a little, Adam's article suggests returning to Mercer's system of classifying planes. Planes used for making stock flat and square were classified as "leveling" planes. All planes in this category should have blades that are cambered to some extent. Planes used for making joints are classified as "fitting" planes and the blades are honed straight across. This makes sense to me.
When I square an edge, I use the method shown on Jeff Gorman's site as Alf mentioned. I normally use a #7 but sometimes a #5 or #5 1/2 on shorter boards, all with slightly cambered blades.
Once an edge is "tried and true", I am done with it unless I am edge gluing boards into a panel. For edge jointing, I plane two matching edges at once (match plaining) with a jointer plane (straight blade). The reason isn't because of unforgiving glue but to make sure the boards match and that the panel will lay flat even if my planing is a bit out of square.

 

[Alf]

Once an edge is "tried and true", I am done with it unless I am edge gluing boards into a panel. For edge jointing, I plane two matching edges at once (match plaining) with a jointer plane (straight blade). The reason isn't because of unforgiving glue but to make sure the boards match and that the panel will lay flat even if my planing is a bit out of square.

But Roger, it's such an unnecessary extra step if you can square up boards with a cambered blade. Why?! Unless there's some sort of plane justification going on here... :-k

Cheers, Alf

 

[Anonymous]

Once an edge is "tried and true", I am done with it unless I am edge gluing boards into a panel. For edge jointing, I plane two matching edges at once (match plaining) with a jointer plane (straight blade). The reason isn't because of unforgiving glue but to make sure the boards match and that the panel will lay flat even if my planing is a bit out of square.

But Roger, it's such an unnecessary extra step if you can square up boards with a cambered blade. Why?! Unless there's some sort of plane justification going on here... :-k

Cheers, Alf

If I was good enough to get an edge perfectly straight and square, it would be unnecessary. But I'm really not very good at all. A board can commonly be 10 times as wide as it is thick so just a degree or two out of square (hard for me to see) can make a big difference in the panel laying flat. A couple of passes with a jointer and the edge angles complement each other nicely and the panel lays flat.
It might be unecessary but it is faster for me to get a joint right this way. I can always justify it by pompously saying it is historically correct! :lol:

 

[MikeW]

...Snip...
Well with a straight blade you apparently have to balance the plane, square and level, on that high edge and plane down, square and level, until you're taking full width shavings. With a cambered blade you've effectively got three ways to take a shaving, 'cos it's kinda shaped like \__/ (exaggerated to the point of craziness). So to get the / edge like __ you'd rest the sole of your plane on the edge of the work so the left edge of the blade is doing the cutting. i.e. Making the shaving tapered so the thickest shaving is being taken over the highest point, with it feathering away to almost, or even, nothing at the lowest edge. It doesn't depend on you being able to balance the plane square on only a tiny portion of the edge, so it's much less demanding on your own sense of what's "plumb". You keep doing that 'til it's square, moving the plane sideways as required to square up the edge. Does that make any sense at all? :-s

Cheers, Alf

Oh, the contrarian in me rises once again :lol:

Obviously there are at least 2 more ways of accomplishing any given task than the number of people asked...

"My" way? Aside from the ghastly admission some time ago that I have and use a R / L-handed pair of #95s, when I use, say a #8 or #6 (yes, I own two #6s...how's that for useless <g>) and I care a long board's edge is square to one face or the other, I just use that little lever thingy to adjust the blade a little. I was told this would produce a tapered shaving.

Even to the point that one could have the entire plane all but centered lengthwise down the board and take a shaving that tapers down to nothing. Just by moving a little lever and not balancing the plane precariously on a board's edge or nearly off one side of the board in order to use the opposite side of the plane.

But then, on glue-ups that involve large panels, I just use the method Roger uses. Angles compliment each other and then as long as a little care is used, the boards fit properly.

I'd stick a link in here showing a display case with its glued up top of Bubinga (which should make seeing the joint easy) that was edge jointed with the cute little #95s (it's only 20" long or so) and offer a fine prize if someone can find the joint in the pics, but what's the point

We all have and use methods that someone told us about, pointed us to another, such as DC, or maybe even reasoned out for ourselves. It's all good. Most advice will produce the desired result. The thing that really takes practice is being open to try other ways, giving them our best effort.

 

[Alf]

Roger, a thousand apologies for bringing about this terrrible confession. I'm sure you're not really that bad at all, and if only you could lose the training wheels you'd be just fine...

I just use that little lever thingy to adjust the blade a little. I was told this would produce a tapered shaving.

Ach, forgot that one. But what d'you do when the high edge switches from one side to the other along the length?

Oh well, I'd better try and keep an open mind I s'pose, bearing in mind the BUT* showing up at some point and the increased difficulty of getting a suitable camber on a bevel-up iron. :roll:

Cheers, Alf

Bevel Up Try plane :lol:

 

[MikeW]

...

I just use that little lever thingy to adjust the blade a little. I was told this would produce a tapered shaving.

Ach, forgot that one. But what d'you do when the high edge switches from one side to the other along the length?
Oh well, I'd better try and keep an open mind I s'pose, bearing in mind the BUT* showing up at some point and the increased difficulty of getting a suitable camber on a bevel-up iron. :roll:
Cheers, Alf

What do *you* do?

It's probably the same/similar--'cept on my part fixing the problem is probably never consistent :lol: (The results are though.)

If, which isn't all too often the bevel goes side-to-side, I do a little judicious fixing with a block plane, itself canted a little to correct those relatively small areas. Then I switch back to the long thingy and then possibly, once the edge is straight, but maybe off square to a face, I use the #95s set very fine. Swipe or two and it is square. No constant sighting down the board, etc.

Sometime I start with the little #95s to first square the edge and take one or two full swipes with one of the long things. After all, making a long joint even down its length and keeping it square to a face is easy if it starts out square...

 

[Anonymous]

It's not a terrible confession. :lol: For me, woodworking and tools are a journey of discovery with no particular destination.

 

[Anonymous]

One more thing about match planing. You don't have to have a perfectly flat face to reference from. Often I'll glue up rough or partially flattened boards and then flatten the entire panel.

 

[Alf]

What do I do? I just move the plane sideways, left or right, as I go along in order to take the thicker cut in the necessary places. Same plane. When the gods are with me, and it happens more often when I'm in practice, squaring up and straightening can all get done in just a couple of passes - assuming that all saw or tailed demon marks are gone of course.

'Course the truth is that jointing edges for gluing is one of the woodworking tasks I enjoy doing most; I like pitting my cambered edge and small square against the board without the help of fences or mechanical adjustments. It's one of the few tasks I can accurately do without recourse to them I suppose, hence the enjoyment, and the resistance to square edges! :lol:

Roger, fair point about not needing a reference face. That didn't occur to me because I use those four-way clamp things to glue up panels, and you need the faces parallel anyway.

Cheers, Alf

 

[MikeW]

"'Course the truth is that jointing edges for gluing is one of the woodworking tasks I enjoy doing most..."

And that [enjoying the journey] is what makes us all strive to adjust how we do something to acheive our best at the task at hand, in our own way, at our own pace.

And to quote Roger, "For me, woodworking and tools are a journey of discovery..."

Absolutely.

 

[Frank D.]

I felt kind of bad reading the Charlseworth article in PWW, since I prefer using a flat blade for most tasks and Charlesworth is kind of a hero of mine, but I was comforted reading Cherubini. He says a gluing jointer plane (for preparing edges) is a fitting plane and should have a straight blade. I've never had problems jointing with a straight blade.
Frank

 

[Chris Knight]

Careful Frank, you will have the thought police on your tail (aka Bugbear and Alf - who have never learnt to use a plane with a straight edge)

Personally I put it down to an inability to create a straight edge (ducking and diving :lol: )

"INCOMING!!" (pasties that is)

 

[Frank D.]

You may be right Chris. :lol:
I tried explaining how I joint an edge once, it's buried somewhere in the forum, thank God; it sounded like rubbish when I reread it. Now all I have to do is refer to Cherubini, Mercer et al. Life is good.
Frank

 

[garywayne]

Hi everyone,

I have come to the conclusion to buy the Record 077A, plane, and see how I get on with it. [-o< I can always sell it on later to fund another tool.

Excuse my ignorance. What does # stand for when you refer to plane numbers/No? (So I can look them up on the net, and know what your talking about).

Please carry on the discussion, I'm learning a lot of different ways of planning an edge that I can try, and see what suits me personally. I belive that's what it's all about, finding different ways to do things, and see what best suits the individual. At the moment I am leaning towards the convexed blade. :-k

I totaly agree with the open mind thing.
"The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open". :idea:

Regards, Gary.

 

[MikeW]

...
I have come to the conclusion to buy the Record 077A, plane, and see how I get on with it. [-o< I can always sell it on later to fund another tool.
...

Oh good for you

I have the earlier Preston one. It is a fine plane and I use it often enough I'm glad I have it.

Mike

(# = the word 'number' is all)

 

[Alf]

Personally I put it down to an inability to create a straight edge (ducking and diving :lol: )

More like somebody can't sharpen a decent camber... :lol:

Cheers, Alf

P.S. So dovetails then. Tails or pins first...? :-k :wink:

 

[garywayne]

Thanks Mike.

Yes, Alf.

Regards, Gary.

 

[MikeW]

P.S. So dovetails then. Tails or pins first...? :-k :wink:

Yes...

 

[Chris Knight]

P.S. So dovetails then. Tails or pins first...? :-k :wink:

You know perfectly well that there is only one right way to do dovetails! :roll:

 

[Alf]

You know perfectly well that there is only one right way to do dovetails! :roll:

Woodrat? 8-[ :-$ :lol: