Who was the customer for a plane like this in old England?

[Jacob]

....... It's just a matter of the degradation of work standards and demands has followed with the introduction of jigs and rounding over freehand bevels.

It's the rounded bevel which confuses people.
All the old books quite rightly warn against "rounding over" i.e increasing the edge angle progressively in search of the burr.
This has wrongly been interpreted by beginners as meaning bevels must be flat.
But in fact "rounding under" is perfectly OK. The edge stays at about 30º but with the bevel behind rounded. This is what you get if you do easy, fast and energetic freehand honing, but without going over 30º. You start the movement at 30º and dip the handle slightly as you go. It means you are also backing off at the same time and on narrow or thin blades avoids having to grind on a coarser stone.
In fact keeping a bevel flat is quite difficult freehand - hence the attraction of the jig.
I do seem to have to explain this very often (100s of times! ) but if you stop and think about it a bit it's not that difficult to grasp.

 

[GerryT]

Quite right Jacob.
Why people continue to perpetuate the idea of a “rounded bevel” with the freehand method that you and others advocate I’ll never know.
The bevel is never “rounded”; sure it might be slightly convex, but that just follows by the natural movement of arms and hands along the stone and is not the same as a so called “rounded bevel”.

David, with all due respect, for all your obvious knowledge and skills you continue to obfuscate when it comes to Jacob and his preferred method of sharpening.
Everyone has their preferred method or methods and it matters not one jot how one comes to a sharp edge so long as it is sharp and holds that edge for a reasonable time.
Why it is that a quite simple topic has to be replied to with book length discourses that most times have little relevance to how someone sharpens their tools I’ll never know.
Sure, many times you speak great sense and are often very informative but again most of these long posts have little relevance to the topic at hand.

It seems that you find it hard to except that others hold a different and maybe even more valid/ reasonable position than you do and I think this latest thread shows that.
Sure, if your not persuaded by another position then that’s fine, but why keep up battering away at your detractors, why just not accept and move on ?


It wasn’t that long ago that you announced that you were leaving the forum because you felt you were either under appreciated or misunderstood or that the rest of us plebs were just ignorant of your methods.
But here you are back and battling with Jacob and others once again .
Im glad you didn’t leave, at least not permanently, but sometimes the whole thing becomes quite tedious .

Written with all due respect
Gerry

 

[Jacob]

.......
But here you are back and battling with Jacob and others once again .
Im glad you didn’t leave, at least not permanently, but sometimes the whole thing becomes quite tedious .
....

I'm always worried that I might set him off - he was typing frantically through last week but seemed to have eased off (a bit) yesterday!
PS should add - I'm not particularly interested in Norris, Spiers, Holtey etc so called "high end" stuff. They aren't practical, teach us nothing, and are made as trophy wealth symbols like Rolex watches et al which probably don't keep time any better than my £5 Casio.
I only joined in on the subject of scythes, which I am interested in!
PPS Why Your Rolex Isn't Keeping Perfect Time - Watch Chest Blog they seem to be much worse than a cheapo Casio - mine gains/loses just a few seconds in a year.

 

[essexalan]

Keeping well away from the thread destroying sharpening subject I must admit I use a Norris #1 14 1/2" long. I find it comfortable to use and easy to adjust just a quick tip tap with a light hammer and away we go. If you can adjust a wooden plane then it is simple. Never weighed it against my Record 5 1/2" and never will but both get the job done except for some reason the Norris is better for final flattening of end grain chopping boards. The amount of stuffing put in to the front end of an infill jointer might explain the front end weight bias unless there is some hidden reason for it.

 

[D_W]

Quite right Jacob.
Why people continue to perpetuate the idea of a “rounded bevel” with the freehand method that you and others advocate I’ll never know.
The bevel is never “rounded”; sure it might be slightly convex, but that just follows by the natural movement of arms and hands along the stone and is not the same as a so called “rounded bevel”.

Hi, Gerry - the bevel is rounded. I guess this isn't easy to see unless you sharpen both ways and measure edge life some way or another. Doing the same task (in actual work, not a test) is a good way to do it. The difference is fairly subtle - the convexity on the bevel may only be a few degrees vs half a dozen in the other direction using something like what holtzappfel talk about or what hasluck went on about, but they are very significant in actual work. I tend to pick at people when they talk about doing a volume of work but don't notice things like this. Everyone wants to keep secrets on the forums - what they're actually working on, how much they've done. That whole part of this becomes a bit of a charade.

David, with all due respect, for all your obvious knowledge and skills you continue to obfuscate when it comes to Jacob and his preferred method of sharpening.

Part of my response earlier was a bit in jest. How? How often do you see someone talk about sharpening and jacob comes through with a response that doesn't address any of the questions and talks about the way "people have always done it", except it's not the way people have always done anything. There's a rationalization when we do things, that ours is the easy way, the sensible way, the "way people have always done it". It's a self pat on the back to build consensus from ghosts. I haven't read a whole lot about sharpening, I compared things - so if I bring up something like holtzapffel or hasluck, I'm just happy to see something that aligns with reality.

It seems that you find it hard to except that others hold a different and maybe even more valid/ reasonable position than you do and I think this latest thread shows that.
Sure, if your not persuaded by another position then that’s fine, but why keep up battering away at your detractors, why just not accept and move on ?

Again, that part is a bit humorous here. That Jacob is the victim of someone droning on.

It wasn’t that long ago that you announced that you were leaving the forum because you felt you were either under appreciated or misunderstood or that the rest of us plebs were just ignorant of your methods.

Neither of those. I was annoyed that the discussion can never progress, in combination with the fact that there are a lot of complainers who don't offer much but complaining. When I say "don't offer much", I mean there's a lot of hypothetical posturing, little showing of work, and there definitely have been a few cases where people go on about how their posts aren't appreciated or it's disheartening that they don't get more responses. Neither of those have anything to do with me - if you're interested in what you're making, learning or doing, you will post about it. There seems to be fairly little of that. If you're posting because you want someone to believe something about you, then you may complain about the lack of responses or not getting them in the right way. I don't think anyone has any obligation at all. Not collectively, and not as an individual, to appreciate anyone else here and when people feel entitled to be appreciated (a nebulous thing) instead of discuss actual things they're doing or have done, we get off the rails.

We're all plebes. One of the issues that keeps the discussion from advancing is that if I talk about something that's a simple collection of trivial things, or someone else does, it's described as complicated. Rest assured, I don't generally talk about anything if it's not an improvement that is substantial and that I have tried, done or used and compared.

 

[D_W]

I'm always worried that I might set him off - he was typing frantically through last week but seemed to have eased off (a bit) yesterday!
PS should add - I'm not particularly interested in Norris, Spiers, Holtey etc so called "high end" stuff. They aren't practical, teach us nothing, and are made as trophy wealth symbols like Rolex watches et al which probably don't keep time any better than my £5 Casio.
I only joined in on the subject of scythes, which I am interested in!
PPS Why Your Rolex Isn't Keeping Perfect Time - Watch Chest Blog they seem to be much worse than a cheapo Casio - mine gains/loses just a few seconds in a year.

Jacob, you're interested enough to let us know. The first sentence is you lobbying, let's be realistic.

The latter, comparing quartz watches to quality mechanical watches, that's probably a discussion from the 60s. It's the watch version of saying that plastic corrugated furniture is better than wood - it's cheaper, will last longer, needs no maintenance. I've got 6 mechanical watches, one that's a brake regulated seiko (not the same as a classic mechanical watch). None have ever been serviced and none manage to get out of time before I'm not wearing one for a day or two and the power runs out.

The counter to that is that I do think people who drone on about the quality of furniture and how it's not appreciated by the masses completely miss the point. The masses don't need to be swayed - the makers need to realize the masses don't care about furniture beyond function and surface color most of the time. I like a mechanical watch. I have zero interest in convincing the masses that there's something wrong with a $4 quartz watch.

 

[D_W]

It's the rounded bevel which confuses people.
All the old books quite rightly warn against "rounding over" i.e increasing the edge angle progressively in search of the burr.
This has wrongly been interpreted by beginners as meaning bevels must be flat.
But in fact "rounding under" is perfectly OK. The edge stays at about 30º but with the bevel behind rounded. This is what you get if you do easy, fast and energetic freehand honing, but without going over 30º. You start the movement at 30º and dip the handle slightly as you go. It means you are also backing off at the same time and on narrow or thin blades avoids having to grind on a coarser stone.
In fact keeping a bevel flat is quite difficult freehand - hence the attraction of the jig.
I do seem to have to explain this very often (100s of times! ) but if you stop and think about it a bit it's not that difficult to grasp.

I've seen a lot of people who claim that they don't get over 30. Remember when you called me <30 minute refurbishment of an early 1800s plane "confusing" because I described exactly what I did and then showed the plane blasting away at hard figured maple without tearout? I think if I explained to you where you're in a golf swing zone, you'd claim it was confusing.

"golf swing zone" - the principle of someone talking about what they think is happening, what they're doing in their swing, where, how, why, and then showing a video of it and what they think they're feeling isn't what they're actually doing.

In short, the bevel will always be chased steeper, no matter how shallow you want to make it rolling, the geometry of the edge will suffer both in camber and clearance and you're ultimately creating more work for yourself. Hasluck described this better than I've seen. I experimented over time just in the course of daily use to understand this - not sure I would've grasped it without the experience.

Which leads to my biggest annoyance about the discussions never progressing to anywhere without someone getting huffy and claiming it's complicated and nobody does it (when it's not). There's an ability to do this stuff entirely by hand without too much skill - it takes a little experience.

There are two huge myths:
1) that it's physically too difficult for someone able bodied
2) that it's hard to understand and expensive

Quite often, someone will attempt to paint me with strange brushes about sharpening material costs, etc, when I typically use and talk about a sharpening rotation that nobody could possibly not afford if they can afford to buy wood. I *have* some exceptionally expensive stuff, and have had others in the past. It doesn't move the needle, but some details do. Edge fineness makes a difference, edge geometry makes a big difference. As someone continues to work longer, chasing the bevel shallower and separating the honing and grinding is the only natural course.....unless hand tools are a side show to power tools.

And lastly, maybe I'm just wrong about people wanting to work by hand. Maybe they don't want to, maybe they want to imagine it and there's something about really doing it that isn't as interesting as pondering it.

 

[D_W]

Keeping well away from the thread destroying sharpening subject I must admit I use a Norris #1 14 1/2" long. I find it comfortable to use and easy to adjust just a quick tip tap with a light hammer and away we go. If you can adjust a wooden plane then it is simple. Never weighed it against my Record 5 1/2" and never will but both get the job done except for some reason the Norris is better for final flattening of end grain chopping boards. The amount of stuffing put in to the front end of an infill jointer might explain the front end weight bias unless there is some hidden reason for it.

I think the positioning of the handle is the issue for a plane being nose heavy in a short length.

When the infill is tall to make the bed and the handle is set in it, it has to sit up higher and then the plane created by the plane iron (poor choice of words?) has to be adhered to - the top of the handle has to fit below it and behind the plane even after the iron length has stopped because you still have to be able to tap the iron without hitting the handle.

I see some early spiers planes where the handle was set back into the shorter part of the infill and can only conclude that they gave up on the idea of the plane being moved around with one hand when retracting it. Later planes all seem to have given up on this. Whatever the case may be, they didn't choose to move the mouth further forward to change the balance point. and the stuffing in the plane also fights trying to balance things vs. stanley where the frog is stuck right behind the mouth and there's really not much ahead of and behind the center point.

I doubt anyone ever thought those details interesting enough to document and keep back then. The last part of that making was in the generation of my grandparents and modernity was on the rise in terms of popularity and they threw everything away hoping never to go back to "farming with horses", so to speak.

 

[D_W]

Written with all due respect
Gerry

Separately, Gerry - if I ever talk about something I've compared and it's hard to decipher the key bits but you want to try something, please feel free to just say "Hey, Dave - this is all fine and good, but I want to try X - can you tell me as compactly as possible what I should compare or do, briefly why, and what I should be able to observe?"

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It seems that you find it hard to except that others hold a different and maybe even more valid/ reasonable position than you do and I think this latest thread shows that.
Sure, if your not persuaded by another position then that’s fine, but why keep up battering away at your detractors, why just not accept and move on ?

That should have been addressed to Jacob, surely?

 

[Jacob]

That should have been addressed to Jacob, surely?

I don't batter away at my detractors or criticise them by name but I reserve the right to disagree with them!
Phew that's four long-winded meandering new posts above from you know who!
Who needs a stalker!
Anyway have a look at this if you have nothing better to do: The Grimsdale Method

 

[Jacob]

Hi, Gerry - the bevel is rounded. I.....

Yes it is a bit rounded D_W. Not a lot but don't worry about it. If you still don't get it you never will. Waffling on about Haspfeffel and Holtzluck doesn't seem to be helping you!
Life is too short, back on ignore!

 

[D_W]

I don't batter away at my detractors ...

Nobody is "your detractor". Just my opinion, but the constant talk of hypotheticals showing very little work and making generalizations is what draws exasperation from some folks. In combination with a near magical ability to not address or respond to actual comments or questions, but rather answer the same answers to questions not asked.

Phew that's four long-winded meandering new posts above from you know who!

So subtle.

Anyway have a look at this: The Grimsdale Method

I traced the site back from the "grimsdale method" article. Let's be honest, I don't see much on it that has a lot of hand tool use involved. Maybe cutting dovetails?

Which leads to what I mentioned earlier - the curation of what people are actually doing. When I post something that I'm actually doing with hand tools, I'm actually doing it with hand tools. I've come to realize over the years that most of the people who talk at length about using hand tools are talking about what they think they would do, and when someone says something like "scrub plane" all the time and "metal planes are just as fast for dimensioning as wooden planes", I can tell they're not actually using them.

The recent comments about the cap iron reveal the same - if you're not using planes for a full cycle of work, then you can't give good advice on how to do it. You can imagine how you might do it and when someone comes along with gnarly wood that they want to work from start to finish, you may have good intentions but you give them advice that will lead them to believe they can't fill their house as a hobbyist without buying power tools.

 

[D_W]

Yes it is a bit rounded D_W. Not a lot but don't worry about it. If you still don't get it you never will. Waffling on about Haspfeffel and Holtzluck doesn't seem to be helping you!
Life is too short, back on ignore!

Jacob, you're still not following. One way is far superior to another - it was lined up as superior when it mattered. It takes less time to do and yields better results, and most people are trying to pick a path. Picking the path that works less well doesn't make any sense, just as the notion that fine stones or fine abrasives are a modern thing leads people down a road to dull short-life edges.

And insisting on it without knowing the difference will collect you fans for "standing up for the little guy" (which is a weird notion), but leave people looking to do something well grasping at straws and doing things like writing blogs about the grimsdale method instead of settling into gaining experience on their own.

It's not by chance that the older texts are specific about this stuff the way people are now about spray equipment, spiral heads and wide belt sanders if they're making a living.

 

[GerryT]

Separately, Gerry - if I ever talk about something I've compared and it's hard to decipher the key bits but you want to try something, please feel free to just say "Hey, Dave - this is all fine and good, but I want to try X - can you tell me as compactly as possible what I should compare or do, briefly why, and what I should be able to observe?"

David and Phil

There was huge dose of irony in my post which I guess is hard to catch unless your the writer.
I‘m not ignorant of Jacob‘s DW bashing but it does work both ways of course.

David
I don’t have any problem understanding your posts at all .
But they do sometimes say in 3000 words which you could probably say in 300.
I appreciate your posts most of the time but I don’t know where you get the time to make anything given that your dissertation length posts must take up an awful lot of your time … Joking of course .

 

[D_W]

David and Phil

There was huge dose of irony in my post which I guess is hard to catch unless your the writer.
I‘m not ignorant of Jacob‘s DW bashing but it does work both ways of course.

David
I don’t have any problem understanding your posts at all .
But they do sometimes say in 3000 words which you could probably say in 300.
I appreciate your posts most of the time but I don’t know where you get the time to make anything given that your dissertation length posts must take up an awful lot of your time … Joking of course .

Gerry - making and talking about it is pretty much my only hobby. i don't go to bars or watch TV or anything else, so I guess this is like my TV time. it does leave me out of the loop at work when people talk about netflix or pretty much anything. I work, make, talk about making, spend time with the kids, go to sleep.

you're right about 3000 vs. 300 or 300 vs. 30 or whatever the scale may be. the typing is more like pondering and consolidating thoughts. if I thought someone wanted a step by step about something to actually use, I'd scale it down - I see fairly little evidence that forum discussion leads to much of it, though ( a bunch of people getting up and doing something useful ). I wish that wasn't the case, but it is.