Hornbeam
Established Member
Yes but a Clifton 5 1/2 is a chocolate hobnob
Smoothing plane
- Thread starter Zag73
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Homeless Squirrel
Established Member
Well must have Baileys as it is the Xmas Season!!!
thikone
Established Member
Not really, usually the other way around. Rough with machines and then final touches with hand planes.
Only started to use machines this year. Previosly, I had to prep and dimension with hand planes alone, from rough to finish. I found this article to be useful, also if you want to know how and why several hand planes are needed for efficient work - Coarse, Medium & Fine.
Machines have fast spinning blades - one small touch and 2 mm are gone. With the hand planes one shaving is 5/100 mm or less. Tolerance I usually able to hold is like 0.1 mm for the entire length of a piece, be it a tea box or a bed. I doubt I can achive that with machines... unless it is a CNC of sorts. And no machine can make perfect miter like a hand plane can.
if you want to use a thicknesser, that's more than fine. I don't have a jointer (american terms), but I do have a portable thicknesser that I use only very occassionally. rough lumber with twist has never needed more than jack planing and then just running the thicknesser over both sides. if you're prepping stock for the thicknesser, it's a bit of a waste to go further than just roughing with a jack plane, so long as you can do it reasonably accurately.
thikone
Established Member
Right, if no joiner or too wide for the jointer then sure. I just went all way in and got 410 mm wide planer/thicknesser or jointer/planer… or jointer/thicknesser 
Right, if no joiner or too wide for the jointer then sure. I just went all way in and got 410 mm wide planer/thicknesser or jointer/planer… or jointer/thicknesser
For whatever reason, the array of jointer and planer combination machines are either not varied over here or overpriced. I also don't have legitimate dust collection for anything big. But you're right about what I implied, it's good practice if no jointer is on site.
Jack prep isn't too bad for a machine planer, but hand thicknessing can be meditative but arduous if you don't like it.
I use my thickness planer for really low quality wood, but never on good stuff.
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
David, for fun, watch the Wood Whisperer and his new Felder thicknesser (planer). In particular, the finish quality.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Regards from Perth
Derek
Last edited:
Have no relevant experience of old Stanleys and the like and am not even a hugely experienced hand tool woodworker - my background is machine shop, design engineering and R&D.
I posted the thread on the blueprinting and rebuild of a rubbish example of an oldish Clifton 5 with a Juuma bronze chipbreaker. I also have a number of Veritas bevel up planes including a wide smoother.
The point with a smoother used as intended is that it's likely to be routinely asked to take very fine cuts on tough woods - with the mouth opening set tight to reduce tear out. It has to be capable of taking consistent fine cuts over a flat surface - of doing a lot better than just catching the odd high spot here and there.
That means the ability to take wide shavings down to perhaps 0.001in or even less. There's not much point trying to do that with an out of flat sole for example.
This apart from the usual sharpness etc for most users requires a plane with VERY accurate alignments and a vibration preventing mounting of the iron - in particular a very flat sole, a flat and very accurately seated and aligned frog/bed, a good iron sharpened with very light camber and so that the edge is square, an an accurately aligned mouth opening and very predictable fine adjustments.
An old plane (if my Clifton was representative) should it not meet these requirements is going to be a right PIA to use - and be pretty much unusable if it is significantly off. That's not to say that somebody with many years of experience with a particular tool might not eventually find ways to minimise the difficulty - but it depends on your needs and standards too.
An old tool with problems is potentially capable of being sorted out IF you know what you are doing - but this depending on the specific problem(s) may not be an easy task.
The big benefit of buying a Veritas (or presumably a Lie Nielsen or other premium plane - no experience) is that it will come with the required alignments and accuracies built in - including a lapped iron the back of which will polish up in a few minutes. (no need for rule tricks and the like)
An old plane with problems has at the cost of a lot of labour and not insignificant money (it's easy to spend more than half the cost of a premium plane on parts like a thick iron and chip breaker set) the potential to teach why these things matter and how to fix them - but is just as likely to discourage, cause the punter to give up, blame the self or the tool and walk away.
There no doubt are some fine differences (in favour of either type) in very specific circumstances between bevel up and bevel down planes - but these are not likely to matter in the case of an old bevel down unless its (whether by the factory, a previous owner or by blueprinting) been very accurately tuned and set up...
I posted the thread on the blueprinting and rebuild of a rubbish example of an oldish Clifton 5 with a Juuma bronze chipbreaker. I also have a number of Veritas bevel up planes including a wide smoother.
The point with a smoother used as intended is that it's likely to be routinely asked to take very fine cuts on tough woods - with the mouth opening set tight to reduce tear out. It has to be capable of taking consistent fine cuts over a flat surface - of doing a lot better than just catching the odd high spot here and there.
That means the ability to take wide shavings down to perhaps 0.001in or even less. There's not much point trying to do that with an out of flat sole for example.
This apart from the usual sharpness etc for most users requires a plane with VERY accurate alignments and a vibration preventing mounting of the iron - in particular a very flat sole, a flat and very accurately seated and aligned frog/bed, a good iron sharpened with very light camber and so that the edge is square, an an accurately aligned mouth opening and very predictable fine adjustments.
An old plane (if my Clifton was representative) should it not meet these requirements is going to be a right PIA to use - and be pretty much unusable if it is significantly off. That's not to say that somebody with many years of experience with a particular tool might not eventually find ways to minimise the difficulty - but it depends on your needs and standards too.
An old tool with problems is potentially capable of being sorted out IF you know what you are doing - but this depending on the specific problem(s) may not be an easy task.
The big benefit of buying a Veritas (or presumably a Lie Nielsen or other premium plane - no experience) is that it will come with the required alignments and accuracies built in - including a lapped iron the back of which will polish up in a few minutes. (no need for rule tricks and the like)
An old plane with problems has at the cost of a lot of labour and not insignificant money (it's easy to spend more than half the cost of a premium plane on parts like a thick iron and chip breaker set) the potential to teach why these things matter and how to fix them - but is just as likely to discourage, cause the punter to give up, blame the self or the tool and walk away.
There no doubt are some fine differences (in favour of either type) in very specific circumstances between bevel up and bevel down planes - but these are not likely to matter in the case of an old bevel down unless its (whether by the factory, a previous owner or by blueprinting) been very accurately tuned and set up...
The odds are better with new planes, but I will have to add that two of the 10 LN planes I bought were at their spec limit with the sole hollow. If you were trying to smooth something flat with them, they would not take a continuous shaving for several passes (assuming it was dimensioned accurately). This was an issue even in work that was relatively short.
A beginner probably won't know what's causing the problem and won't be able to correct it (or be afraid to - on the first plane, i sold the plane rather than fixing it. The second was 10 years later and I fixed it instead to laser flat and then sold the plane.). the difference in use was drastic. the first plane was a #8 jointer. It would've been OK for rougher work, but I could not match plane or even joint longer boards and not have a gap at the ends.
if this bias goes the other way (the mouth is lower than the tips by the same spec), the plane is a wonderful worker. The other 8 LN planes were dandy. I might encounter 2 and 8 in vintage planes vs. 8 and 2 in premium types. In a longer session with planes, I much prefer the older planes over LN or LV, though. Once they are set right for work, it's less work to use them in most cases and the bits laying on the frog are a little better for day to day actual work.
A beginner probably won't know what's causing the problem and won't be able to correct it (or be afraid to - on the first plane, i sold the plane rather than fixing it. The second was 10 years later and I fixed it instead to laser flat and then sold the plane.). the difference in use was drastic. the first plane was a #8 jointer. It would've been OK for rougher work, but I could not match plane or even joint longer boards and not have a gap at the ends.
if this bias goes the other way (the mouth is lower than the tips by the same spec), the plane is a wonderful worker. The other 8 LN planes were dandy. I might encounter 2 and 8 in vintage planes vs. 8 and 2 in premium types. In a longer session with planes, I much prefer the older planes over LN or LV, though. Once they are set right for work, it's less work to use them in most cases and the bits laying on the frog are a little better for day to day actual work.
the other thing that's a little odd in the current environment - I make the comment above with the thought that I would from time to time clean up planes for someone local who was serious about woodworking at no cost. Not an unlimited number, but a core group, to include flatness. It's tedious until you know how to do it well.
It used to always be easy to say "just go buy a premium plane" but production of everything in the US is so far behind that it's not as easy.
and as much as I'd like to say "you have about a 20% chance from a small sample of getting a plane that's going to cause you a lot of extra work, so if you can't ______, send it back and request a check on the sole of the plane"
____ would generally be plane two edges that match without having gaps at the end.
...as much as I'd like to say that, I doubt most beginners would have any idea if they're planing the ends off or the mechanics of the plane is making it difficult not to.
I hear that LN's prices are starting to go up significant on some items that only crept up slowly. Given that it took them a while to get bank approval for a business plan the last time they expanded, they probably needed to do that, anyway.
It used to always be easy to say "just go buy a premium plane" but production of everything in the US is so far behind that it's not as easy.
and as much as I'd like to say "you have about a 20% chance from a small sample of getting a plane that's going to cause you a lot of extra work, so if you can't ______, send it back and request a check on the sole of the plane"
____ would generally be plane two edges that match without having gaps at the end.
...as much as I'd like to say that, I doubt most beginners would have any idea if they're planing the ends off or the mechanics of the plane is making it difficult not to.
I hear that LN's prices are starting to go up significant on some items that only crept up slowly. Given that it took them a while to get bank approval for a business plan the last time they expanded, they probably needed to do that, anyway.
I've been very happy with the manufacturing accuracy of the Veritas planes I bought. (mostly in the US about eight years ago)
Fine Tools in Germany tend to be price competitive versus the UK and seem to have most Veritas planes in stock and to be actually discounting them at present. Some of the smoothers are currently out of stock however...
The good makers do an incredible job I think. I'm amazed that they can make a profit given the extent of the product ranges they offer - both Veritas and Lie Nielsen. The higher end Eastern stuff is coming on strong too in the case of the more standard types.
I hope we're not heading into a price war like that which destroyed tool quality post WW2..
There is a lot of potential for problems to develop in even a genuinely capable plane manufacturing process. Fixtures have to be carefully designed and kept clean by those using them so that the (irregular) casting is supported and rigidly held during machining but without being sprung, and machine tools have to be consistently capable of accuracy. Then there's the matter of the aging of the casting - stress relieving may or may not be 100% reliable leading to some distortion over time.
Less sophisticated jobbing shop methods (i.e. operator and machine with less by way of fixtures, high accuracy CNC etc) processes (up to the point where it becomes impossible due to worn machine tools, fixtures etc) rely heavily on the skill and commitment of those doing the machining to deliver the goods - and on the management culture.
An authoritarian but technically incapable management (e.g. accounting or sales led) that drives output rather than the requiremnent to 'get it right first time' risks staff finding creative ways to get product together and out the door without much regard for precision or what matters when the tool is in use. (perhaps the case with my previously discussed oldish Clifton no. 5?)
Operatives (as opposed to machinists) hired recently off the street and placed in such an operation are likely to be especially risky - and unlikely to have any appreciation of what the consequences for the end user of their shortcuts will be.
DIY rectification of e.g. sole flatness problems must mess up lots of planes too - sandpaper on even a flat surface is not always very precise. Perhaps for rough work if the paper is glued down.
Best then though to switch to a purpose made granite surface plate (not expensive in smaller sizes these days) or other proven flat surface. Wipe on a thin film of engineers blue
(not the marking blue which dries to enable visibility when marking out with a scriber) then drop the plane sole on to it. (fully assembled with the usual lever cap tension, the frog locked down but with the iron retracted)
Misalignments or out of flat bearing surfaces on the frog and/or the frog bed in the sole should be sorted out first.
Selectively remove material from the areas which made contact (to which the blue transferred) using a proven truly flat diamond plate like an Atoma and repeat (usually numerous times) until getting contact over most of the area and especially in front of the mouth and at the nose - and at the rear end.
Once flat the finish on the sole can be improved using finer diamond plates and carefully and frequently flattened (the Atoma plate again) successively finer hand held waterstones. Shapton are good because they wear less than some.
Be very careful if holding the plane in a vise - a quickly made wooden fixture is safer. More than minimal pressure (especially if applied further up the unsupported sides) risks springing the casting - but too little and your plane could end up on the floor.
It's tempting to use a fine cutting file for coarse metal removal, and it is possible - but an awful lot of care is needed if irrecoverable hollows are not to be produced.
Blue used like this on a reference surface is a quick means of just checking for flatness too, but be aware that a granite surface plate is flat to within a couple of tenths of a thou so that with a fine film of blue it will probably make even a very flat plane sole look bad by contacting it only in places.
Hand work with a carbide scraper is also an option for metal removal, but requires skill and is risky around the mouth.
A ground cast iron or even heavy duty extruded aluminium machine table may function as a decent reference surface - but beware of the fact that the tables on many even supposedly professional quality machines are not even close to flat. (even on jointers where a few thou in the wrong place can be disastrous) Most rules are not truly straight either.
The blue wipes off easily with solvent and a rag - but between the blue and the iron dust in water its a messy business.
It's hard to do much work of this sort without a flatness reference - a small granite surface plate and reference straight edge is a good investment for anybody likely to be doing this sort of thing on an ongoing basis... e.g. but lots offer them: Surface Plates Granite
Fine Tools in Germany tend to be price competitive versus the UK and seem to have most Veritas planes in stock and to be actually discounting them at present. Some of the smoothers are currently out of stock however...
The good makers do an incredible job I think. I'm amazed that they can make a profit given the extent of the product ranges they offer - both Veritas and Lie Nielsen. The higher end Eastern stuff is coming on strong too in the case of the more standard types.
I hope we're not heading into a price war like that which destroyed tool quality post WW2..
There is a lot of potential for problems to develop in even a genuinely capable plane manufacturing process. Fixtures have to be carefully designed and kept clean by those using them so that the (irregular) casting is supported and rigidly held during machining but without being sprung, and machine tools have to be consistently capable of accuracy. Then there's the matter of the aging of the casting - stress relieving may or may not be 100% reliable leading to some distortion over time.
Less sophisticated jobbing shop methods (i.e. operator and machine with less by way of fixtures, high accuracy CNC etc) processes (up to the point where it becomes impossible due to worn machine tools, fixtures etc) rely heavily on the skill and commitment of those doing the machining to deliver the goods - and on the management culture.
An authoritarian but technically incapable management (e.g. accounting or sales led) that drives output rather than the requiremnent to 'get it right first time' risks staff finding creative ways to get product together and out the door without much regard for precision or what matters when the tool is in use. (perhaps the case with my previously discussed oldish Clifton no. 5?)
Operatives (as opposed to machinists) hired recently off the street and placed in such an operation are likely to be especially risky - and unlikely to have any appreciation of what the consequences for the end user of their shortcuts will be.
DIY rectification of e.g. sole flatness problems must mess up lots of planes too - sandpaper on even a flat surface is not always very precise. Perhaps for rough work if the paper is glued down.
Best then though to switch to a purpose made granite surface plate (not expensive in smaller sizes these days) or other proven flat surface. Wipe on a thin film of engineers blue
(not the marking blue which dries to enable visibility when marking out with a scriber) then drop the plane sole on to it. (fully assembled with the usual lever cap tension, the frog locked down but with the iron retracted)
Misalignments or out of flat bearing surfaces on the frog and/or the frog bed in the sole should be sorted out first.
Selectively remove material from the areas which made contact (to which the blue transferred) using a proven truly flat diamond plate like an Atoma and repeat (usually numerous times) until getting contact over most of the area and especially in front of the mouth and at the nose - and at the rear end.
Once flat the finish on the sole can be improved using finer diamond plates and carefully and frequently flattened (the Atoma plate again) successively finer hand held waterstones. Shapton are good because they wear less than some.
Be very careful if holding the plane in a vise - a quickly made wooden fixture is safer. More than minimal pressure (especially if applied further up the unsupported sides) risks springing the casting - but too little and your plane could end up on the floor.
It's tempting to use a fine cutting file for coarse metal removal, and it is possible - but an awful lot of care is needed if irrecoverable hollows are not to be produced.
Blue used like this on a reference surface is a quick means of just checking for flatness too, but be aware that a granite surface plate is flat to within a couple of tenths of a thou so that with a fine film of blue it will probably make even a very flat plane sole look bad by contacting it only in places.
Hand work with a carbide scraper is also an option for metal removal, but requires skill and is risky around the mouth.
A ground cast iron or even heavy duty extruded aluminium machine table may function as a decent reference surface - but beware of the fact that the tables on many even supposedly professional quality machines are not even close to flat. (even on jointers where a few thou in the wrong place can be disastrous) Most rules are not truly straight either.
The blue wipes off easily with solvent and a rag - but between the blue and the iron dust in water its a messy business.
It's hard to do much work of this sort without a flatness reference - a small granite surface plate and reference straight edge is a good investment for anybody likely to be doing this sort of thing on an ongoing basis... e.g. but lots offer them: Surface Plates Granite
Last edited:
G S Haydon
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 223
The edge jointing of a board is an excellent test of a plane. It really highlights an issue with the sole, if indeed there is one at all.
G S Haydon
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 223
Some of what has been mentioned by Vaj is in this video.
For me personally I view the steps in the video as a waste of time. I did something similar once, you might even find it here on the forum.
Once you get into planes a bit you learn what areas are important and what are faffing about.
For me personally I view the steps in the video as a waste of time. I did something similar once, you might even find it here on the forum.
Once you get into planes a bit you learn what areas are important and what are faffing about.
Not being harsh in saying this, but most of those things aren't necessary for getting the sole of a plane very very flat.
Imported feelers, a starrett 24 inch straight edge (unfortunately, for longer planes, I don't know of anything that will actually be straight enough for sure - but finding one used that is checked against a reference straight edge is fine), and a glass shelf with PSA paper is all that's needed.
But, yes, I'm sure a lot of planes are ruined when flattened by people on their first attempts. Less is more. I was able to substantially improve an LN 62 that was concave right at the spec limit, but it wasn't the first one I flattened by hand. I personally won't send anything back to manufacturers when it's at their spec or close.
This isn't really an engineering operation, though - it's just simple flatness. There are some basic conditions, but they are not hard to meet (for example, to make this process easy with a glass shelf, it's necessary to plane a flat area that conforms to the straight edge where the glass will be located). Flatness well below a .0015" feeler's ability to get purchase is not difficult to attain, and to understand how to bias it so that it's within that but slightly convex is also not difficult.
Too, this is only important if people are going to use planes regularly with that level of precision. Where it's not necessary is fitting joints off of a jointer or disc sander or finish planing that will be followed by scraping and sanding.
This is kind of like a discussion of refitting an old wooden plane. It's really easy to make that a trivial thing if you build planes, and what may have taken hours previously with not so great results could be a couple of minutes with experience with far better results. but understanding where bench planes need attention and for what is hard to know ahead of time without doing the actual work. I'd love to tell people how to fit wooden planes easily, but I think it requires the experience of doing it a good bit.
(I don't know the circumstances that allow veritas to be reasonably priced, but Maine is one of the places in the states that has the mindset to operate the way Lie-Nielsen does. to do what they do with as much consistency and stability as they do almost needs to be oppositional to typical practice in the US or western europe).
As kip would say in napoleon dynamite....
after watching that video...."jeez"
(humorously, I think he may have realized at the end of the video that all of the iron and frog lapping was a complete waste of time unless there was actually a problem to start. The *only* thing I've ever encountered on LN planes was the slight hollowness in spec on the sole. I've never had any issue with any other parts of the planes not fitting, and it's hard to say that what I don't like in the two planes concave is a quality issue - it's in spec. I don't think LN or their buyers would really understand why it would be better to set the constraint perhaps in an asymmetrical way (very little concavity tolerated, but a little more freedom on the convex side. I don't think the average buyer will use the planes enough to even notice. Of the planes I bought used, all were flat, but none had ever had the irons reground, even after years of possession).
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Much easier, cheaper, quicker is to use thin paper backed wet n dry well wetted with white spirit - or water if your flat base is not rust prone.
It was designed for the job. Seems to have been forgotten.
You splash your fluid on a flat base - I use the bed of my planer, but there are many well known alternatives.
Drop on your sheet of wet n dry, splash more fluid over it and you are off.
Work your plane to and fro.
As it gets flattened down it sticks and stays in place very flat, which cloth backed won't do. Gluing it down is worse and ends up less than flat.
For longer plane use two pieces end to end. 80 grit will do - work the plane to and fro to keep the scratches in line. Use a straight scrap of wood as a guide and move it about to use the whole of the paper.
No need to move to finer grits - the "sharpness" disappears very quickly with use.
I know it's unfashionable but it works really well.
PS when finished you peel off you sheets of sand paper. When they are dry store them between boards so they stay flat and easier to re-use.
https://myhometools.co.uk/product/wet-and-dry-sandpaper-sand-paper-klingspor-poland-80-grit/PPS The first one or two passes will immediately show up high points and indicate how much you need to do. Most do far too much.
Last edited:
That’s some machine you’ve got there!Right, if no joiner or too wide for the jointer then sure. I just went all way in and got 410 mm wide planer/thicknesser or jointer/planer… or jointer/thicknesser
Ttrees
Iroko loco!
How do you propose the premium planes to measured, if you don't have two of meeting points at toe and heel?
Sounds costly to do it right, and it wouldn't favour any room for error either.
I'd sooner have a concave sole rather than a banana, as all that's required is merely a
lick of abrasive to make things quite the opposite.
Much less effort compared to a plane which will pivot about in the centre,
in which one needs to do spot working before the usual whole surface lick on the lap afterwards.
FYI, If the OP or anyone else are somehow swayed to try lapping a plane with adjustable mouth,
then just don't do it whatever you do,
lapping one of those is certainly another tier regarding precision flatness, should you wish to actually adjust the toe plate.
Tom
