Ok, just to bring up a point I was thinking about while reading another post on hand planes. Everyone seams to act and think that the ultimate level of hand plane tech was in about 1920 to 1930, however I wonder if this is true? LN, Veritus and others such as (and sorry about messing up the spelling and names) Marcou are making very nice planes for us to use and some of them have improved the designs (well changed them anyway).
So is it still true that the names designs and ideas of almost a hundred years ago should be the be all and end all of planes? Not to put them down (a lot more peaple used them back then, then do today) but this would have been like someone telling Stanely that a 1800 wood hand plan was a better tool. (time wise anyway).
I think that we need to remember what was and use that to start from but if someone has a new idea on a plane design we should look at it and try it, not just say well in th old days a stanely 100334123 and 1/68 hand plane did that and it was not good so your new plane design will not work either.
I also note that some peaple are talking about what the proper name for something is/ was. In this respect it is like we are acting like the world of hand planes and wood working stoped 80 years ago. Wood working is still alive and growing. And a name that was (or was not) correct 80 years ago may not mean much today.
Personally while I find the history interesting (I am a history buff) I am more interested in working in wood. And if someone says they have a better hand plane (or saw, or drill) I will at least look at it and see what it does. My interest (and I assume a lot of others on this forum) is working with wood, not reproducing the way peaple worked 100 years ago. Yes I use hand tools because I enjoy using them (or becuase they get the job done better) but I am not going to limit myself to what existed before my father was born. I am going to use what ever it the best tool (that I can aford) to get the job done, and maybe someone today building on what was done in 1900 can come up with a better design.
Well I guess I will get off my soap box now (and climb under it to hide from the historical pureist)
Doug Meyer
Replies
Hi Doug
There are many reasons and many ways to work wood.
Yours is one of them.
Regards from Perth
Derek
"and sorry about messing up the spelling and names" Too funny. If you edit your post and correct Veritus to Veritas, people will find it when they search for information on Veritas. It's pretty hard to mess up LN. ;-)
I think this country is fairly in love with the 1920's and 1930's vis a vis American-made goods. It shows in the collectibles area, prices of many items when compared to the same items of other eras.
"Well I guess I will get off my soap box now (and climb under it to hide from the historical pureist)"
I wonder who you could possibly be talking about? Thanks for reducing years of work to irrelevant purism.
I deleted my response to your chisel roll question. I had some information about what guys did with their chisels 250 years ago, but now I see that wouldn't be of interest.
Adam
You seem to attract a significant amount of criticism. Please know that there are people who very much appreciate your contributions. Thank you.
Of course, maybe if I had purchased a 7 1/2 instead of a 7 I would smite your remarks.
Edited 9/23/2007 7:07 pm ET by MattInPA
Spite me or smite me?Thanks Matt.
Adam,
A few of us are interested in what you have to say...I would particularly be interested in your thoughts on chisel rolls and would greatly appreciate them.
Roderick
Adam, please take this as constructive criticism, and not an attack.
You seem to take the least statement contrary to your methods as an attack against you. You very rapidly get snide and petty in your responses. It is extremely irritating. Were we in a bar, someone would whack you along side the head with a pool cue.
With regard to your quest for historical purity.
There is a family tradition that before you can own a rifle you have to build a gun case. One of those rights of passage in my family. When my older brother was thirteen, he built his gun case. It was modeled on the one my father made. There is "flaw" in both of them. The drop down front panel has a glass paneled drop down door. On both my father's and my older brothers, they screwed up the "stile" and brought the dado that holds the glass out to daylight and then filled it in with what can only be described as a loose bridle joint. When my father first saw my brother's, ( the brother built his when Dad was out of town on a business trip), the first thing he did was point at the joint and ask, "What in the hell did you do that for?", to which my brother replied, "But it is just like yours." Dad laughed and told him it was the first piece he built and he screwed up. My brother has now built five more just like it so that all the cases on his wall are the same. My nephew copied his Dad's case so his incorporates the "flaw", also. And realistically, it is a pretty suitable joint because it has passed the test of time.
If I build another it may have that joint. It is far easier, particularly with a table saw, than the tennons I made.
I visited my aunt last year, who has possession of the cases built by my grandfather and great-grandfather. They too have the same joint. So, we now have five generations of cabinets that all incorporate the same "flaw".
Just because it is old, and a craftsman of the past did it, does not mean it is "right".
That's the first time I've heard of a woodworking joint flaw that was hereditary. You think it's a dominant or recessive gene?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
J-n-F
Great story. Thanks!
Regards from Perth
Derek
Adam,
Here is an echo to Jig's moan about your over-sensitivity. Like others, I read your posts avidly for the information they contain. I would like to say that I just ignore your pomp and that - but it's quite hard and this sometimes detracts from your desire (I think) to impart wisdom. Your rhetoric is not as clivver as your woodworking! Also, it is a magnet for bad boys like moi.
Anyway, here is a vote of grateful thanks nevertheless - for the informed opinions but also for the chance to poke fun at a bloke who maybe needs to laugh at hisself now and then. :-)
Lataxe, a fan of sorts.
Edited 9/22/2007 4:25 pm ET by Lataxe
Edited 9/22/2007 4:28 pm ET by Lataxe
OK how in the world did this become a thread about Adam? Did I call anyone by name? I was not in fact talking to or about Adam. I do not know Adam. I was in fact talking about how a LOT of people seam to think that if something was the way it was in 1920 then we should still be happy with that. This holds true not just in wood working but in house design also (for example) I have been on this forum for a while now and I have seen enough of it to have a general ideal of how over all people will respond to some topics, The question was not because someone posted on another thread. It was a question that I was thinking (yes after reading the other thread) But it was (and is) not directed at anyone. It is in fact directed at the group (in general) who put the old planed up on the top of a step ladder as the be all and end all and never seam to have a reason why the old is better. Just that it "is".
I am (well was) a computer guy, (Now I design buildings) I was taught buy one of my first Profs that you ask why something is the way it is, and if the answer is "because it always was that way" then you can be pretty sure that no one has a good reason for it being so they are just used to it being that way and don't want it to change. I think that is true in a lot of things.
The point was not that the old is not good. I never said that. I said that JUST because a company tries something new does not make it wrong. People did not quit having new ideas in 1920. Someone in 1900 may have thought that the wood planes were great and that the new mettle jobs were no good because they did not look like the wood ones. Who knows? I LOVE the B-17 and the F4U they are great aircraft and in the day were the best of the best, but a B-1 or B-2 and an F 16 or F 15 (or the new F 22) would blow them apart. Does not make the old bad but the new does the job better, I know I would rather be in an F22 then in the F4U it was fighting. Some things do get better with new tech, some things don't.
Take the new on its own merits and if the old is better fine, say WHY the old is better. I am (as I said) a history buff, I love the old stuff (going to the Ren Fest on Sunday) but I don't think that just because it is old it is better (I also do not think that just because it is new it is better) If it is better then it should be better and you should be able to state why it is better. My father built a wood boat in the 1960s and hand screwed in a 100 screws into the transom, today I have a little Bosch driver that could put them in much better. Which way would you want to put them in?
The point was why do a LOT of people think the old planes are perfect? And the answer (so far at least) is that we do not have a good reason for this idea, we just have people that get pissed (and delete posts) because I dared to ask the question.
I think that justifies my comment about hiding under the box. :)
Being as about the only person that answered the original question was Forestgirl I will ask it once again.
Why do so many people think that the be all and end all of hand planes was sometime around 1920 to 1930? Reasons anyone? (and lets try not to take the question personally this time please)
Doug
Why do so many people think that the be all and end all of hand planes was sometime around 1920 to 1930?
I think your question starts from a false premise as far as asserting that handplanes were at their best in the 20's and 30's. I for one, would be happy to have a stable filled with infills from well before that. Patrick Leach, a reasonable authority on planes (http://www.supertool.com) thinks the Stanley's were best around 1880. Wooden molding planes coveted by many, are mostly from well before 1920. Adam here likes wooden bench planes - jointers 3 feet long and such. I could go on, but you get the idea. You have erected a strawman in asserting there is some consensus that planes from the 1930's are the best. I doubt anyone is anxious to defend your dubious assertion you so generously espouse on their behalf.
I will admit that Stanely's bench planes started a precipitous decline in quality in the 1940s that only accellerated thereafter. Do you contend that those available in the 70's and 80's, for example, could touch a Sweetheart vintage version? Cause if that's your question, it ain't worth asking. We now have boutique makers like LN that do indeed produce planes of comparable or better quaility than Sweethearts. A vast majority of those are Stanley designs machined to a higher tolerance and built from better materials (ductile iron). LV tries to push the envelope with tweaks, but personally, I'd rather have LN versions.
Doug,
Gawd you witter on, bloke! Get to the point, will yer? I never witter on. :-)
Your prof was maybe one o' them Modern Rationalists who thinks everything needs to be reinvented from the ground up every day. Modern offices are full of them, with their latest Grand Plan (read Yet Another Flop). Them Rationalists are Utopian idealists and not practical folk. They forget to stop thinking wishfully; and also overlook the many unintended consequences of their New Model Doodah.
Also, they hate yesterday with a vengeance because it is not "new and improved". This is mere prejudice.
(By the way, please don't confuse Rationalism with being rational or with Reason).
A good tradition contains often centuries of good practice and the associated knowledge. It may or may not contain a significant written component to the knowledge, depending on the subject. Many types of knowing do not benefit from being reduced to mere words. It therefore becomes hard to argue about them - except by demonstrating a physically better method, design, procedure, material, etc..
A good tradition also evolves, so that the stuff of 1920 is not the same 87 years later but the old stuff is still the obvious pro-genitor of the current best in the tradition today. Handplane technology and design is perhaps a good example.
Old stuff is not so much superseded as bettered - or just changed to suit its changed environment. Old planes still work very well even though new ones do too - maybe a tad better in one way or another. Perhaps the new ones are easier to maintain or to make; or less complex because of a strong new material obviating the need for some previously needed component (eg thick, A2 blade and better-machined bed dispenses with the need for a chip breaker).
As to "best" - well what are the criteria for measuring a thing's various values? Do we even need to allocate "best"? Why can't stuff just be what it is, with various styles and qualities suiting (or not) various desires and purposes? If an old plane works well and the owner likes its old-ness, so what? Similarly, if I prefer a shiny new one and it works, so what?
Only the daft lad who buys a plane because its cheap or blue (he is a tightwad and a supporter of a team with a blue-coloured jersey) then finds it doesn't work, ought to have his reasons examined.
In short, your question is another of them non-questions really. The "problem" it supposes may not exist.
Lataxe, argumentative git.
Samson,
I personally dont think that the 1920's ish planes are the best. on the other hand newer ones from some companies suck, but then some of the new ones are great. But for some reason a lot of peaple just assume that the newer stuff is not as good, and look down on anything that is inovative. If someone tries the new plane and has issues with it that is fine, but to dislike it because it is new and inovative (ie Different) is (in my opinion) a poor way to judge something. I mean who would buy a saw blade with out the modern tech we have now? On the other hand from a lot of things peaple say the old style (I think they started off as old Dewalt?) Radial Arm saws are supposed to be really nice due to design features that the new style saws dont have.
Lataxe,
Yeah I jaw a bit. :) And not she (my Prof) was not a modernist type. She just wanted reasons for something and not just "feeling" or "traditions" or "guesses" and that is my point. If the old style tools (planes, Chisels and such) are really better then those made today (by the better companies) then that is well and good, but to say something is not as good as the older stuff just because it is not a perfect clone really seams to say nothing. We have learned a bit. If you look at the last 80 years or so. It would be like my grand dad (born in 1900) ignoring everything new in carpentry after 1840 because the old ways were good enough then. If thier is a reason that is fine but that is my issue. A LOT of peaple (and I was not just talking about here, but in mags and books and other web sites) always act like the old stuff is way better then the new stuff but never seam to say why. Obviously the old BedRocks are better then a 1990 Stanley but that is because I have played with both. If I was saying something in a post I would try to explain why (better castings, better design frog, better blade, etc)
One way it is a reason (better casting for instance) the other is just an opinion with no facts presented. It is like saying "I like the old stuff better" but never saying why.
We (in this country at least, not sure about other countries) seam to like anything old better then anything new. I think this is because we are a young land compared to Europe. But just because it is old does not mean it is better or worse.
Doug Meyer
the new plane and has issues with it that is fine, but to dislike it because it is new and inovative (ie Different) is (in my opinion) a poor way to judge something.
Who are these "people" who dislike certain tools for "no reason" other than that they are "new"???? Sounds like another strawman.
It you are referring to something on the 7 1/2 thread, I think you sorely misunderstood if you thought it was newness that led to the objections. I read a lot of very specific critiques: non-adjustable mouth; more difficult to sharpen as a camber, etc. Old or new is has no bearing on quality in a tool - when it was produced is a red herring. What is important is how it was produced and what results it is cabaple of achieving.
Oh, and as you seem to be consistently mispelling it: it's "seem" unless you are talking about clothing or sewing, in which case it is "seam." ;-)
Edited 9/22/2007 8:32 pm ET by Samson
Doug,
I suspect as much as anything else, the importance of planes in production was severely lessoned with the introduction of the electric motor. I once heard a story about the impact of electricity at the turn of the century with electric lights....but in the 20's it wiped out a whole generation of tradesman when the hand power tools rolled out. My guess would be that people became highly interested in the new electric gizmo and less interested in hand tools.
Doug, a lot of people probably don't know why, the planes from between the wars are " better". And, what follows is in no way definitive, but hopefully will shed some light on the question. To really get into it would take a book, or maybe two, and lots more research than I have the time or inclination to devote to the subject. So, here it is in a very condensed version.
The evolution to iron bodied planes was driven by a desire to develop tools of good quality at a lower price point. For the most part they were not really capable of producing better work than the planes they replaced, but easier to produce to a set level of quality.
A wooden bodied plane will work as well as the cast iron planes produced at the "pinnacle" of plane production if properly tuned and maintained. They were however a little more finicky to adjust and keep adjusted. Thus the wooden bodied, but mechanically adjusted transitional planes came into being. But there was still a desire to produce bodies that were less susceptible to seasonal changes.
The infills were an attempt to overcome many of the issues with wooden bodied planes, and to some extent they did solve most of the problems, but were labor intensive to manufacture. The planes Philip Marcou produces are beautiful, and from what I read highly useable. But they are an example of why the major manufacturers went to cast iron bodies. He has many hours of highly skilled labor invested in every one he makes. (I think that with modern CNC machining they could be produced quite competitively with the cast iron bodied planes, but as yet no one has started to produce them. Perhaps that is a niche market one of the guys around here who does CNC machining could move into and make a decent living at.)
The next move was to the metal bodied planes that most of us picture first when the word plane is used. They were easier to produce than the wooden, transitionals, and infills.
As hand planes were the only possible way to do the work, and the market was large and competitive there was a lot of engineering effort expended to produce planes that both worked better, and were less expensive to produce.
There were mistakes made. Some of the changes Stanley made only lasted a short period of time before they were phased out and changed. This design effort to improve the planes, which was driven by demand for high quality planes was cut back and then eliminated entirely between World War I, and World War II. The manufacturers saw a move towards other tools to accomplish many of the task traditionally done with hand planes. (In many instances they were the driving force in the development and marketing of the knew tools.) There was still engineering devoted to the manufacture of planes, but more as a means of decreasing the cost, than in any effort to improve the tool, and after World War II, the quality was also sacrificed in the pursuit of the price point. All of the manufacturers came out with homeowner/handyman grades, and then phased out their "professional" grade lines. A lot of it was in the fit, finish and appurtenances. The surface tolerances were looser, the metals not quite as good, and wooden handles were replaced with plastics. Surfaces that had once been highly polished, (lever caps), were painted.
That is why there is a consensus that the planes produced from just before World War I to the start of World War II are superior tools. They were the pinnacle of engineering to improve the tool, still a widely used professional tool, and most of the value engineering hadn't happened yet.
It wasn't until the last twenty to thirty years that woodworking as an affluent hobby came into it's own. Now there is once again a group of people who use hand planes. They are affluent enough to buy high quality planes, and for the most part not driven by the need to produce a product to a price point. If the price is the determining factor over quality, there is lots of "good looking junk" at Wal-Mart for less than we can buy the materials to produce something dimensionally similar for. I'm sitting at a computer desk made of black metal and "maple". I can't buy the metal, or the maple for the $39.95 I bought the thing for.
Lie Nielsen, and Lee Valley are both marketing to this group of affluent woodworkers. Lie Nielsen is for the most part producing reworks of the Stanley line with little innovation or change, other than better materials and tighter tolerances. Lee Valley is looking at the designs of the early twentieth century, and reengineering them.
Lee Valley has more CNC utilization in their production, and is actively working at improving the function of their line. The difference in the amount of CNC work is reflected in the cost between the two of them. Lee Valley is able to produce and sell their planes at a lower cost.
Hopefully this shed a little light on why the planes from the first half of the twentieth century are "better".
"... wooden bodied plane[s].... were however a little more finicky to adjust and keep adjusted. Thus the wooden bodied, but mechanically adjusted transitional planes came into being."I think this is an incorrect statement. I don't believe there was ever a sense that wooden planes were difficult to adjust and so a better design was sought. Leonard Bailey invented the metal bodied plane to cut out the skilled labor required to make a wooden plane. Its interesting to note that this was not a world wide phenomenon. The metal plane fits into the American industrial revolution. I think if you looked very carefully, you would find all of the changes in hand tools since the 18th c were made to cut labor costs. Its possible some of these changes resulted in better tools, though I can't think of a single instance.Early wooden planes offered several advantages over our modern metal planes: They were longer so they could flatten to higher degrees of accuracy, they were lighter and produced less friction so they were easier to use for a 10-12 hour day, they had thick laminated blades that were easy to sharpen yet stiff enough to provide excellent chatter free planing. Unlike even LN's bedrock frog, a wooden plane's "frog" extends all the way to the sole. 18th c wooden smoothers were offered with higher cutting angles than any Stanley, something only recently considered by modern plane makers. Seasonal movement is a red herring. I doubt any workman ever considered it to be an issue for his many wooden tools. Its an issue for the stock he worked. Early plane designs took seasonal movement into account.I'm not even sure its true that the planes made between the wars were the best of their type. I have a couple Stanleys from 1880-1900 or so and they are very fine metal planes. You'd probably have to go plane by plane. I've heard tell a #604 is better than #4. But I wouldn't agree that a #605 is better than a #5. Its heavier, right? I think to some extent, the criteria used to compare planes in the magazines has been subjective and divorced from the traditional (practical) usage of the planes. When one looks at the actual intended usage of hand planes, earlier wooden planes would come out as the higher performers.Adam
Here we go this is exactly what I was trying to get to in the first place with this thread. REASONS for opinions not just person preference.
I may disagree with a persons reasons but at least I can see why he thinks the way he does.
Adam this is exactly what I was hoping for. Two (or more people) that know things about hand planes discussing why one or another style/type is better then the other.
Unfortunately I know very little about this subject, but I get a lot of people in mags and such expressing opinions with out any reasons to bake them. This gives me little to form a personal opinion on, and teaches me nothing of real value. But discussions like this last post of yours, that directly comments on things is if extreme use. It gives me an understanding of why you think the way you do. And thus will give me a little better understanding of the subject. This is the type of reasoned logical conversation that I think we need to use when talking about new planes (and almost any other tool comparison). If people would give opinions backed up with reasons then we all could understand the points they are trying to make. Unfortunately in books and mags I have read over the years (and a lot of internet stuff) I seam to run into more opinions and less reasons and this leaves me know way to figure out what I think, only the ability to parrot others, and that is not teaching me anything.
So thanks for bringing this around to the type of discussion I was hoping to have (but was afraid we would not see) This is what I am on this forum for. Reason discusions based on reasons. You may not agree with the other guy this way but at least you can understand why he thinks the way he does. (right or wrong)
Doug
Doug,
If you think this quote from Adam's post some how represents reasoning, then you must have low standards for adjudging the process!
"I think if you looked very carefully, you would find all of the changes in hand tools since the 18th c were made to cut labor costs. Its possible some of these changes resulted in better tools, though I can't think of a single instance".
Now, I wonder how he can reach that very hard and fast opinion without donning some very large, dense blinkers? Of course, I may be misjudging his erudition and research effort; he may have investigated every tool and their performance, every manufacturing process and every motive of the owners and designers in the last 250 years. On the other hand.............
Lataxe, having a reet good larf at the daft lad - again!
To Lataxe, I did not say I agreed with it I just said this was what I was looking for, Reasons peaple believe the way they do. I understood his point, not sure I agree with it (not sure I know enough to agree or disagree) but at least I could understand where he was coming from. It is one thing to say I hate this hand plane, and another to say I had the way this hand planes frog works. You may not agree with it but at least in the later example you can understand what the guy is thinking.
To the rest of you (and Lataxe) The recent post have been very much in the line of what I was hoping to get when i stated this thread. Peaple expressing why they think that hand plane did or did not peak way back when.
I love it I am learning a lot about how peaple think about this topic (not sure I am in a spot to decide was is right or what is wrong but at least I am understanding the points of view here!)
Doug Meyer
Sometimes a post calls for a light touch- and Lataxe is there to provide it. Thanks.I won't recapitulate what others have said, but offer a few observations.1. The 18th Century was wonderful. The Enlightenment, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (sorry Lataxe), the rights of man, Lagrangian mechanics... all milestones. That said, the sum of human progress did not end there- contrary to some would like to think (and declaim).2. Wooden planes are wonderful. They work very well, and have a time honored place in the craft, including the present day. They originally began as tools made by the craftsman themselves, and given the possibilities of endless variation that wood confers, they were designed for every conceivable purpose- for milling, finishing, boat building, window and door construction, and on and on.3. Wooden planes also have some limitations. For one thing, they are difficult to mass produce. Secondly, they will wear out with continued use, although generally not for quite some time. Lastly, they are not as easy to adjust as metal planes- most find turning or backing off on a knob easier to fine tune than tapping with a hammer- the ergonomics are better. These are limitations.4. It is no accident that metal planes began to supplant wooden planes at the end of the 19th century, largely because of the industrial revolution. While wooden planes continued (and continue) to be made and employed, the Bailey designs became popular because it was possible to reproduce in large quantities and with reproducible good quality hundreds of thousands of cast iron #5s and #7s (and many other types besides) at lower cost than their wooden counterparts. This was, I believe, largely because a good portion of the process could be done semiautomatically, with hand machining limited to critical parts, such as the frog fitting. Wooden planes in contrast were largely made by hand, with higher labor costs.5. Since many planes were not used by furniture makers, but rather by carpenters and jointers and craftsman of every description- the durability of cast iron, and its ability to take punishment was very attractive. Advances in metallurgy made casting and iron working more of a science and less of the art it had been in early centuries. The result was a rugged, high quality, inexpensive tool that could be made in quantity. I believe that the early Bailey jacks cost less than a laborers day's wages ~1900.6. The reason that we have not seen "break through designs" in planes by either LV or LN is simple: planes are highly evolved- they have had centuries of design considerations. That said, they continue to be refined. I don't agree with the statement that LN (or LV) have not improved the designs of their planes over the original Stanley models. The quality of the ductile iron, the use of bronze where appropriate, A2 cutting irons, improved depth gauges in the new router planes, the option of a York pitch in a 4 1/2 finisher, and other refinements too numerous to list, all bear witness to the continued refinement in design and quality.In the end each may have his preference. I like the LN (and LV) because they are well made, well finished, durable and refined. Others may prefer infills or wooden planes or power tools. In the right hands, each will produce fine results. To argue that one method is universally superior or that only one way is correct is fatuous.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Glaucon, and all,
All this talk about refinements in lieu of breakthrough technology is a bunch of hooey. Bronze, a refinement? Pah! Mercer wrote of a Roman bronze plane made 1600 years ago. Depth adjustment with no backlash? Wedges haven't had backlash in hundreds of years! The original poster was right, planes are stuck in the mire of tradition.
Take the progression of the automobile, and the firearms, industries for comparison, and apply just their existing technology, nothing new:
Where is the digital readout showing depth of cut in thousandths of an inch? How about a pair of laser headlights, indicating the width and location of the shaving you are about to take? Or an LED that flashes a "dull blade" message, so you don't continue to drive on it? Ten or 15 replacement blades stacked in a magazine ready for use; the dull one ejected and the new engaged with the pull of a trigger. A self-propelled, "power assist" feature for those gnarly crossgrained areas would be nice, don't you think? Programmable memory, so you can recreate the optimal pitch, throat, and depth, even tote angle, settings for a variety of woods in your specific part of the world, at the touch of a button, for you, and your wife! GPS activated voice warnings for when you get out of square, shooting those edges: "Lean left! Lean Left! Three degrees off plumb!!" An assortment of optional paint jobs with catchy names-- Autumn Acacia, Desert Mesquite, Ponderosa Sunset, Rio Rosa. Bark textured rubber grip panels. Hell, our planes don't even have cupholders, or gloveboxes, for cryin' out loud!
Now those would be improvements.
Ray
Glaucon,I read your post with great interest, especially your statement:
"the sum of human progress did not end there (in the 18th Century)- contrary to some would like to think."It is brash statements like that which start wars. What you said was only your opinion. I know of others who believe that progress stopped in the 7th century. (That is more of a religious thing.) I believe that all real progress stopped when Elvis died. Of course, the fact that the Indian motorcycle company failed, help bring on the end of real progress. Music got worse, and we got amateurs like the Beatles, the Beach Boys and the Rolling Stones. Motorcycles have degraded down to today's Hondas. Woodworking has devolved from Bailey planes to Festool Dominos. (omygod!!!)Your hypothesis that progress did not stop in the 18th Century should not be allowed to be heard by children. We need to shield them from such statements. It is far worse, the world is actually moving backwards. If we are to stop that regression, we must return to the 18th Century, and take a different path forward. Also, you said one other dangerous and obviously incorrect thing. You said: " To argue that one method is universally superior or that only one way is correct is fatuous." This is patently false. My way is the best. Those who do things differently are fools! The smarter of the fools will recant when they learn the truth. The others will just wallow in self delusion for their entire lives.MelPS - Actually Glaucon, I obviously agree with you, but I was in the mood for an exercise in creative writing. Of course, it is possible that those you are referring to were also just doing "creative writing". Can you imagine the reactions of a newbie who is reading this thread and trying to figure out what to believe? I am glad that Ray responded to you, and really set things straight. :-)Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Are pins significantly better today than in days of yesteryear? Can more angels now dance upon their heads?
A plane is a fancy jig for holding a chisel. There are finite number of bed and blade angles with perceptible differences. Most of the rest is nuance and personal preference when it comes to the vast majority of planing tasks. These are fine -- one might say wispy - gradations.
For 90% or more of planing, any old well tuned Stanley will give you great results. Only in highly figured woods, where tearout can be rampant, do fancier planes make a significant difference, in my experience. Scrapers are often a better -- or at least surer -- alternative in those situations.
Also, folks often talk about planes divorced from context -- as in "which plane is better?" Better for what? If you make Shaker style stuff in straight grained woods, you are not likely to ever need a Norris infill, LN 4 1/2, etc. That's not to say that they wouldn't be fun to have and use, but they are not required to get the results you expect from a plane for such projects. If you are making some high style birdseye cabinet of some sort, fancier planes may well be necessities.
A lot is personal preference. I love my 7, but really am not crazy about my 5 1/2. The jointer tries, joints, matches, etc. The extra length is crucial for these tasks. I just don't find much use for a jack that takes such a wide bite or as a "super" smoother. But more power to those who do.
Samson,
You speak words of wisdom.
A well tuned old Stanley plane will do what I need.
Different people have different likes and dislikes.
Different people do different things with planes.Since I have a part time job at Woodcraft, I can buy Lie Nielsen planes at a significant discount. These are a "liquid investment" in that I could sell any one of them at a profit at any time on EBay. It would be silly of my not to buy a bunch of them. It is much like "money in the bank", and it doesn't take much thinking, and there isn't any risk. So I have the two block planes that I wanted (LA adj mouth, and skew block). I will get a 4 1/2, 5 1/2, and 7, and a few extra irons, and the high angle frog, and I will play and experiment and have a good time at it. No worries on this journey. The only things that can go wrong is that I cut myself badly or that I ruin some nice wood. I am likely to do those two things whether or not I get the other LNs. I heartily recommend that all hobbyist woodworkers get a part time job at Woodcraft. The work is enjoyable. You meet some great folks, especially professionals who are more than willing to share info. You get to help people who need help. The hourly wage is not something you would brag about, but the discounts are very very very good. They could drop the hourly wage, and I'd still keep the job (but please don't tell them that). I have full access to a full shop of tools and I can take any of their courses for free. You can't beat those things with a stick. If I was smart, I'd borrow $100,000 and buy a lot of LN planes at the discount price, and then just sell them off, a few at a time, on EBay, and live off of the profit. (Obviously, I am not going to do that.) I do know that the Woodcraft and Rockler stores often need more part-timers. I heartily recommend that hobbyist woodworkers look into it. To me, the nicest thing about it is the ability to help others. Yesterday a guy came in and was having a difficult time learning chip carving. He was using the wrong kind of knife. I showed him a good knife (the Wayne Barton). I showed him how to hold it. I watched him and gave him some pointers. That took 15 minutes. The guy's eyes lit up at how well he could do after a very brief lesson. That made my day (his too.)So my questions about LN planes had a context. Now you know it. I figure that the LNs will work at least as good as the old Stanleys, and, given my situation, they are an excellent and a liquid investment. I also figure that I will not give them up, even though I could.Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
That's all good. I have plenty of tools that far outstrip my needs (or skills for that matter!).
All I was trying to say is that we all tend to over analyze and over complicate some of this stuff. As you've said in so many words, you can't go wrong with a good tool. Suppose you buy a 5 1/2 and decide you find it a beast to push around. As you say, sell it on eBay and try something else. You might even make money!
Good on you for helping that chip carver!
See now, I think that 5-1/2 is a mission-less tool. (I know. Not that you asked) Its too fat and heavy to make a good roughing plane, too long to make a good smoother, and too short to straighten or joint. I can understand why DC recommends it as a starter plane. And he hinted at the sort of work he's doing with it. I just don't see what additional capability it adds to any shop. Its like a swiss army knife- (bad at many things).
Just to be able to expand one's capabilities, I think every woodworker should have a #4, #5 and a #7. If money is tight, buy the #4 from LV or LN and get everything else from ebay as vintage Stanley iron. My thinking in this thread is only with respect to general cabinetry/furniture making using North Eastern US woods.
I think Cosman recommends the 5-1/2 because he mills all his stock. With that as an initial condition, really any plane would suit (which I think is the cause of a lot of confusion). If one wanted to replace or perfect any power tool operations, they would be infinitely be better served by the tools I mentioned. For higher performance, I could make a case for the 18th c versions as superior to these (longer, lighter, more aggressive etc).
Adam
P.S. I hear what you are saying and I'm not trying to talk you into or out of anything.
Adam,
As you pointed out, what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. Cosman can get away with different planes because he mills his stock. Also, he is a big strong guy who likes macho planes and can push them around. A person who is lighter, older and less strong might want to take that into consideration in making choices. Here is a summary of what I have been advised recently:
I have been advised to get the #8 by some and the #7 by others, and the LA jointer by others.
I have been advised to get the 5 1/2 by some, and to stay away from it by others.
I have been advised to get new planes by some, and old planes by others.
I have been advised to get the 4 by some and the 4 1/2 by others.
I have been advised to buy on EBay and to stay away from EBay
etc etc etc.This is the problem that newbies have on Knots. Obviously at 64, and having been woodworking since 1968, I am not a newbie. As an oldbie, I am more than comfortable with the seemingly conflicting advice. I have a few dozen planes now, mostly old ones. About half are wood, and about half are iron:
I am going to end up with the following new LN planes:
- Low angle adj mouth block plane
- skew block plane
- 4 1/2
- 5 1/2
- 7
Since I work at Woodcraft, I can buy LN planes at a significant discount. So that is what I will do. They don't sell LV and unfortunately they don't sell Marcous. I figure that the LNs are "good enough",
Like Cosman, I mill my stock, and am really not headed toward using hand planes to make all of my boards. That is merely a personal choice at this time. If the spirit moves me, I'll change directions. The person most responsible for my interest in hand tools is Derek Cohen. From the first time I read one of his posts, I was fascinated by his interest in tinkering and trying things on his own, and in figuring out what works and how it works. I am taken by his approach to things because he ends up with tools, and with techniques that he arrives at by actual testing. I like that. I have made one wooden plane, and I plan to make a few more. The book that I am currently reading is on making wooden planes.Also, in this vein of tool making, I have just made a "schultermesser" (shoulder knife) and a large chip-carving knife for doing large outdoor work, like the Germans, Swiss and Norwegians used for carving the facades of buildings in past centuries. Like you, I read a lot, and I found out about these things in my reading, and decided to give them a try. Since these tools are no longer readily available, I made them. This "tool-making" really interests me. I may end up making a number of wood planes to fill out my collection and see where that leads.Meanwhile, since I have a full time job, a part time job, I do carving,I make a few pieces of furniture a year, and I make a few tools, my days are full. I will retire at the end of the year and have more time to chase down more of woodworking's interesting paths. I am really looking forward to this. You can see why I am not making my own boards by hand. This thread has made some changes in what I had planned to buy in the way of LN planes. My next purchase will be the 5 1/2. I like the approaches of Cosman and of Charlesworth, even though they are quite different. Who knows, I may find out, after I get the experience with all the different planes, that I agree with you about the 5 1/2. This thread has brought out a lot of interesting food for thought. I really appreciate the information you and the others have given me. MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
S,
"A plane is a fancy jig for holding a chisel".
I am awaiting on Philip to make concrete the plane specified by that Ray, except with even more gizmos. (For instance, the blade-swap mechanism could be powered by a model Indian engine and the LCD must run an OS other than Windows).
Let us hope it comes in at less than $100,000. Now that would be one fancy chisel in one fancy jig! I will be buying two (the red one and the yellow one).
But what should such an artifact be named?
Lataxe, gizmo-sucker.
If it has prop (el) er blades, an engine, and Windows, we might call is an "air-plane?"
Badump bump.
Lataxe,
" am awaiting on Philip to make concrete the plane specified by that Ray"
My plane specifications did not include concrete as a material. Although that would give it a nice, low center of gravity. And if the rear portion of the sole had an exposed aggregate of garnet, say, or alumin(i)um oxide, one could sand after planing, all in one swell foop!
Blade swapping should be done by a mechanism less archaic, and classically beautiful, than an old Indian. This is, after all, cutting edge (!) technology. A fuel cell taking ambient moisture from the wood, and splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen will provide enough power for blade swapping, and the power assist as well. Some sort of ion drive, a la Star Trek, with Galgate engineer included. "Skipperrr! She canna take much murra yer cackhanded prrressurrre! She's gunna giv a greet tearrr-out, surre!"
Ray
There will be no such plane coming from me: I adhere to the original formula which is to make a simple , strong , exceedingly seductive plane that works at least as well as it looks.
What on earth has come over you, boy?Philip Marcou
Edited 9/25/2007 2:57 am by philip
Philip,
You ask: "What on earth has come over you, boy"?
I blame a combination of flashback to a 60's mindset ("the white hot heat of technoogy"), Ray's seductive prose and too much reading about Industrial Heroes and their Rearden Metal.
In reality, I have become regressive and sprouted an outgrowth or two of the Neanderthal gene, so not to worry. :-)
Lataxe, who Prof Skillin condemned as "too imginative, will get him into trouble".
What on earth has come over you, boy?
Philip,
Go easy on the poor chap. I think he might have had a few too many of those small squares with the pretty pictures printed on them - you know - from the 60's? Ha Ha
Lee
Ahem. I stand corrected.(Mel, please take your medicine. You may want to go to 400 mgs...)Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Adam,
YOu said:
"you would find all of the changes in hand tools since the 18th c were made to cut labor costs."Does that mean that you think that the changes to Stanley planes made by Lie Nielsen were done to cut labor costs, or to create a botique market for hobbyists?My question is asked in seriousness, not in jest.Thanks,
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
"Does that mean that you think that the changes to Stanley planes made by Lie Nielsen were done to cut labor costs, or to create a botique market for hobbyists?"What changes are those, Mel? Pretty sure LN's planes are more or less exact copies of the Stanley's bedrock design. I doubt they could withstand a patent suit if the bedrock patent were still active. Even their low angle planes are variations of Stanley designs.I'm not really talking about workmanship issues either. I'm sure there were some second rate planes made in the 18th c. Not every plane was a gem. The Seaton chest appears to have some second rate planes in it. Not sure, but they may have come from a well respected maker (Gabriel).I get your point, though. I think the resurrection of the LN bedrocks and LV's introduction of planes is clearly a response to the demand for high performing planes. I think C&W's success is proof of precisely what I'm talking about. The new designs (transitionals, all metal planes or even bedrock planes) are not necessarily better performers than earlier designs. So I think its just inaccurate to suggest (as Doug did) that the desire for early tools (and I would extend this to technique) is entirely nostalgia or purism. Adam
Adam,
Thanks for the information. I have not done research on the differences between the LN planes and the Stanley's that they are based upon.
I have a #4 Stanley Bailey, and in order to close up the mouth, you have to take the blade out. I am looking at a LN #4 and one can close up the mouth simply without removing the blade. The difference in really incredible. With the Stanley, I have to adjust the blade again. With the LNs, you don't. The blade is thicker and of cryo treated steel, and the workmanship is absolutely wonderful compared to my Stanley. I am a novice in this area of hand planes, but to a novice, the LNs seem extremely advanced compared to the Stanleys. Let me know if you find out anything more about this. I will do the same for you. I am not trying to prove anything, and I have no ulterior motives. I am merely trying to decide on a few purchases. Thanks a lot.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
What you are describing sounds like the difference between a #4 and a #604. If the inner workings of hand planes interest you, I recommend Garret Hack's "Hand Plane Book" by Taunton Press. I think the differences between Stanley's #60X and LN's planes are subtle (including price!, blade quality, etc). AdamPS. I also think the criteria often used to compare plane performance has been divorced from actual work. In another thread you asked a highly experienced woodworker for plane recommendations. You need to ask what he uses those planes for, and maybe how he uses them if you are to glean anything of use from him. Fortunately the gentleman in question has written a few books you can read to get a better sense for his work. There aren't many advantages of being a woodworking author. I get no furniture sales from you lot. One advantage I can think of is that my readers now know my work and approaches sufficiently to place my recommendations in context.I bet if DC sees this post, he will agree. Context is important and often over looked.
Edited 9/23/2007 7:31 pm ET by AdamCherubini
I really find the ability to move the frog with the blade in place of limited use. Once my planes are set there is not much adjusting to be done. When I remove a blade to sharpen it there is no reason to adjust the frog. I’m glad L-N chose the Bedrock pattern but again, it is the added weight and firmer bedding that is the real bonus, not the adjustments IMO.
Napie,
I appreciate your advice on why you like the LNs. All any of have on woodworking are opinions. Not many facts here. That makes is interesting.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Adam,
you are 100% right with 2 small quibbles. Infill planes were invented to produce a better plane - although at much higher cost. However from a production basis the number produced was so low to not really interfere with your statement - Infills are an anomaly - and most of them produced don't really work better than a great wooden plane in great condition (you have to compare new vs new or the comparison is meaningless)finally the bedrock series IIFC only weight slightly more than the original basic stanleyYou might even want to go further - hand work in furniture styles has been getting simpler for 250 years too.Joel
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
Seams reasonable to me. And as long as you add that it may be (MAY i said) that the new stuff is at least as good as the old (new being LV/V and LN and others) then I will agree with this. I never said the old stuff was not good. But I think if you look at all the posts on this thread you will see more then a few peaple taking it kind of personal that I question the "Common knowledge" that everything reached its peak in 1920 (or so)
Like I said if you compare two planes and one is better then the other, fine. But more then a few peaple (and I am not talking about a spicific person or thread, if I was I would say so, so please everyone stop assuming that I am point this at ONE person) anyway more then a few peaple on this forum, other web pages and in the mags, allwas compare the new stuff to the old, and never really say anything. Just little things like "this is an attempt to update an old bedrock, but the I like the Bedrock better" Fair enough, but uh why is the old better? Just because it is old is not an reason.
I happen to agree that for the most part the old stuff was really nice. But I think that LV/V and LN are just as good. It just seams to me that a lot of peaple go up in flames if you suggest that maybe someone has a new idea and it works as good or better then something from 80 years ago. And the peaple with the problems tend not to say why the older stuff is better.
Doug Meyer
Doug, you will note that every time better appears it is quotes. I wasn't trying to say any of the planes are "better", just shed some light on why they are commonly thought to be "better".
I will say that the Lie Nielsen, and Lee Valley planes are quite probably the equal to any of the "best" earlier production planes, and quite probably better than nearly all of them. They are both producing a high end tool with quite a bit of quality control. If you have been following the threads on planes here on Knots, you will have noticed that there are those people who are pretty adamant that the LN is "better" than the Lee Valley. I haven't had an opportunity to use similar products from them side by side, (I seriously doubt most of them have either), and won't venture into that fracas. I think it is very similar to the Chevy / Ford / Chrysler debates of my teenage motor-head days, where there was really very little basis in fact to most of the discussions. (imho, Chrysler had the best engines, Ford the best bodies, and Chevy had body styles more girls liked.)
I do know that the I am quite happy with the Lee Valley planes I do own, and would buy another if money permitted.
Just another opinion about why anything was considered "better", could it be that, after WWI and the increase in ability to produce more in a short time, the Stanley Works was better able to produce more planes, at a lower price, of better quality 'relative to the numbers they were producing at the time' than before or after? The early ones were good, the middle period (Bedrock and SweetHeart) better and the post 1940 pieces are generally worse, due to lower quality of materials, less material used/weaker construction/more power tools available to do that job so they didn't bother to make them qualitatively better, just cheaper. Compared with the new L-N, Veritas and several small shop makers, the Stanley plane is a lot like a cast-iron toy. Sure, they work and someone can have a lot of fun with them but they really aren't as good from the standpoint of accuracy in production, quality of materials or ease of use because of the added weight. That said, they have been used on countless homes, pieces of furniture and other projects with results that were good enough at the time.We have better knowledge of metallurgy and sharpening technologies, which improve on what was, as opposed to accepting what the old companies were giving us. Information about these tools is easier to find now than it was before and that has led us to more debate, faster access to tool tests and even more people who normally wouldn't, making their own planes. The care and quality with which the ones were made by the crowd here are impressive. Not necessarily "conventional", but they all have aspects of older models. You make a good point about the affluent woodworkers buying the new pieces. The old ones work, but for the most part, the new ones work better in some ways. People who have the money to buy these tools, don't always want to spend the time to learn to use the older ones. Exotic and highly figured domestic woods seem to be the universal obstacle and some of the new models have come about specifically because of them. The affluent woodworker can better afford to buy the expensive wood, at prices that would choke a Colonial craftsman. Yes, I have seen limber lists and estate inventories from Colonial times.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Doug wrote, "...you ask why something is the way it is, and if the answer is "because it always was that way" then you can be pretty sure that no one has a good reason for it being so they are just used to it being that way and don't want it to change..."
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "ask." If you're designing it's your responsibility to know why. The materials and their properties, the techniques used and even the designs of the past are the result of a lot of evolution. You can bend, break or rewrite rules but if you don't thoroughly understand those rules you'll most likely be dealing with some failure in the future. I can give you countless examples of "innovation" that came with unintended consequences--R-Max (foil faced wall sheeting), polybutene plumbing, aluminum wiring, or even exposed rafter tails on Craftsman style buildings are a few that quickly come to mind. Some wet-behind-the-ears designer may know better than what generations of tradespeople have learned over the course of lifetimes of experience but my personal experience says it's pretty unlikely. What scares me is that the lack of training in the US today has created a disconnect between traditional methods and current practice--the continuity has been broken.
Interesting observations but not necessarily correct.
Metal planes were "developed" to take advantage of mass production techniques. Bailey introduced his iron planes before he introduced his wood bottom planes. Some fool came up with the name "transitional" out of ignorance. Bailey planes were initially considerably more expensive than wooden planes. The reality is there was market resistance to the expensive iron Bailey planes and tradespeople who had to work with their planes all day objected to the extra weight of the metal planes. Extra weight translates to unnecessary extra work if you have to actually use a plane to do something more than take a few shavings for recreation.
I also take some exception to "...not really capable of producing better work than the planes they replaced..." Bailey planes, while successful in the carpenter market, never replaced the wooden plane at the bench. In Great Britain, where bench traditions continued into the 1960s, wooden planes continued in production. In fact, British wooden planes were still in production for some time after Stanley gutted its line of metal planes. In truth, the mystique surrounding infills, exists because infills were the last commercially produced planes to offer anything but common pitch. Even wooden plane makers had gone common pitch for bench planes in their effort to increase volume by compromising their planes. Infill disorder was caused and is perpetuated by simple cutting geometry and the reason infills never had a significant impact on the market is that the earlier wooden planes with an even wider range of cutting geometry were still around. 18th Century bench planes are rare today and I believe it's because craftsmen understood their advantages, valued them and searched them out for their own use. Generations of constant use took its toll.
High volume or mass production, in the past, led to compromises even in wooden planes. Frankly, the best wooden planes of the past were British planes made in the 18th Century and early 19th Century. There was a confluence of events and conditions that led to some significant improvements in wooden plane technology in the late 17th and very early 18th Centuries. I'm still studying those events and conditions but one of the players was a plane maker named Robert Wooding. He's generally accepted as the first full-time professional British plane maker but I have some doubt about that.
19th and 20th Century wooden plane makers rushed to reduce labor costs for all the same reasons business does today. American wooden plane makers led the way, some even opting for prison labor. They adapted to machine production as fast as they could letting the machines and tooling dictate what they produced. As it often does, the dictates of machine production led to compromises. Here's a good example:
View Image
The plane above is an early 18th Century plane by Robert Wooding. Next is an 1857 US made plane by Casey & Co:
View Image
Both these planes cut a 7/8" ogee except the Wooding cuts a fillet on the face of the stock the Casey & Co doesn't. Some of the issues with the later plane include careless stock selection (made from flat sawn stock), shortened grip which limits the depth of the mortise and isn't what's needed for proper support of the iron, the wedge sized for a few standardized wedge thicknesses rather than designing the wedge for the specific plane, minimal effort at details like chamfer and shoulder cut, a clumsy look and feel, generally sloppy workmanship, and this later plane wasn't made with spring which optimizes cutting geometry and limits the mouth opening. The Casey & Co plane is probably more poorly made than many 19th Century planes but it exemplifies allowing tooling and labor cost cutting to control the quality of the final product.
There is more than one way to integrate machines into production. They're based on different philosophies. One is to go the path of least resistance in design and allow the easiest use of machines to control the design. It doesn't have to be that way. I imagine LN is using CNC just as much as other makers. The LN philosophy appears to be to make the machine produce what they want even when it means upgrading tooling or machines. For instance, remove a tote from a LN plane and place it next to those of the other higher volume makers of today. The difference appears to me to be as dramatic as the difference between the hand made Wooding Plane and the later Casey & Co.
You are most probably right. You seem to have invested the time to research it to a far greater extent than I am inclined to. I was trying to pass on the "common" knowledge gleaned from a few magazine articles and web references. Part of the goal was to generate a meaningful conversation where Doug, (and I), could learn more.
I base my comments on the difference in production methods on a pair of articles published in one of the mags a year or two back, where in they compared LN and LV planes, and the philosophies behind them.
LN was essentially reproducing planes from the Stanley line with little or no modifications, and quite a bit of hand work / manually guided machine work. LV was starting from the Stanley patterns, going through CAD redesigns, and making extensive use of modern casting techniques, and CNC / CAM in the production. I think that the difference reflects their different paths into plane production.
Lie Nielsen started out as pretty much a one man show, doing most of the work on his planes himself. Lee Valley was an established manufacturer and distributor when they made the decision to enter the market. And, I think began their production after failing to find planes of suitable quality to stick their name on.
"Why do so many people think that the be all and end all of hand planes was sometime around 1920 to 1930? Reasons anyone?"
I'll take shot.... I think it may have to do with Stanley and the Pat'd dates they put behind the frogs of their planes... If a novice asked a pro "Which old Stanley plane should I buy to get a good quality plane". The pro may say "just look for pat'd dates behind the frog. The more the better." Those are the planes that were made in the 1900-1930's. Hence, the theory that the best planes were made at that time because after WWII they started making tools with less expensive materials (no longer made with rosewood handles) and perception of quality went down.
just a guess
You are absolutely correct, the last two revolutionary improvement in hand planes were the use of adjustment screws and usage of cast metal plane bodies. This revolution and almost complete market transformation seems to be somewhat limited to the US, in (Central?) Europe, Asia and Japan cast metal planes seem to co-exist with older wooden-bodied designs. Conversely, Central European backlash free blade adjuster designs have not made it into our cast metal planes and Asian folded steel plane blades have become available only recently.
Apart from that, hand planes are a dead twig on the three of hand tools and improvements have been evolutionary. Hand planes have completely missed the electronic revolution, the information age and as some would argue the innovation age. The only true revolution was the Japanese (?) invention of the supersurfacer, a motorized cousin of the hand plane, with arguable success.
Today, we understand as little about plane mechanics as we did in the 1920's. Improvements tend to be brute force. All we know (or we think we know) is that thick blades are better than thin blades, heavy planes are better than light planes and flat soles are better than not-so-flat soles. We really don't understand all that much about the mechanics of capirons (call it chip breaker if you like), chip formation, bevel up vs. bevel down design, the effect of corrugated soles or the dynamics of the plane-blade-wood system, lots of (not always consistent) opinions with close to no data.
Modern engineering tools and expertise in answering these questions is globally available (we are not talking about simply replacing ink and paper with a CAD programs and CNC machining, that's been done and lead to potentially cheaper and arguably better planes, but was no revolutionary improvement with respect to the plane design). This could potentially lead to fundamentally better hand planes; but there seems to be little incentive to pursue this option. Much of innovations in technology is seeded by governments who see strategic/competitive gaps in technological capabilities or by visionary companies that see large under-served markets. None of these conditions seem to be true for hand tools.
The situation might change if
energy cost becomes so high that energy efficiency becomes a driving force in commercial woodworking shops. (I read a European research paper recently that pointed out the advantages of supersurfacers vs. rotary cutters with respect of energy efficiency, in some parts of the world this seems to be an emerging trend),
disposal of goods becomes exorbitantly expensive and furniture will have to be built to last
consumers demand high-quality work as opposed to cheap disposable furniture,
governments discover that handplanes are essential for their national defence,
other unforeseen sociocultural and/or economic changes happen.
Until then, 1920's hand planes will most likely remain the pinnacle of innovation in hand plane technology.
Chris, Atlanta, GA
---
Chris Scholz
Galoot-Tools
chris,
Mercer's Ancient Carpenter's Tools shows a Roman iron plane, and discusses another, of bronze, from the 4th century. From his description, they may have been infills. Of course, it's impossible to know how common metal bodied planes were then, but the revolution apparently began a long time ago, in a far away place.
Ray
I believe that the designs that we use today are still here after all these years for one reason, they work. As a medium, wood is the same as it was 100, 1000, or 10,000 years ago. Most power tools are simply motorized versions of their previous human powered implements. My friends that are into blacksmithing use the same basic tool set as the Vikings did, why? The material is virtually identical.
My other hobby is firearms; there has been very little real innovation in firearms technology in over a hundred years, just enhancements. The pistol I carry for personal protection, (and is carried by most of our special forces personal), a Colt model 1911 is a 96 year old design and is STILL considered state of the art, (thank you John M. Browning). Another, the Smith & Wesson J-Frame traces its design back to the 1850’s.
So, why is this, simple, they WORK. And as in most things, if ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
(thank you John M. Browning). ..My service weapon was a BAR. I would suppose there is a better name but what we called them. I LOVED that weapon! My best friend..
Doug,
I think that Adam made some very fine points in the other thread. He didn't stand on a figurative soap box, like you, and solely state that old planes are better than new. He presented some very valid points. I think he presented an argument that many prospective buyers of the referenced planes would have not come across in sales literature or from sales reps at woodcraft. Thank you, Adam.
If you're choosing between a 7 or 7 1/2, Adam has given great reasons to choose one over the other. It seemed like many of the responses leading up to his simply stated that the only difference is the lack of a machined frog, that the benefits of the 7 1/2 are the adjustability of cutting angle, and, with the new feature of an adjustable mouth, the 7 1/2 is the way to go. After reading his repsonse, are you not clearly more informed? If you are currently in the market for one, will you not consider his suggestion? Did you know that before? I didn't.
Many people talk about how far they've slid down this "slippery slope." Adam seems to be much farther down than you or me. He doesn't want your tool to limit your skill set should you decide to follow him down the slope of using hand planes vs. buying hand planes.
In your experience, what makes you believe that his reasons are invalid or should, at least, be discounted?
"Everyone seams to act and think that the ultimate level of hand plane tech was in about 1920 to 1930" The best part about your post is that we'll most certainly get a few paragraphs from Larry Williams.
Edited 9/22/2007 12:24 pm ET by MattInPA
He didn't stand on a figurative soap box, like you...I liked HIS post AND I liked YOURS!I love to hear both sides and I'LL BE THE JUDGE..I mostly use a scraper and a plane is just a tool to me. BUT I sure love my little Stanley 90..
I'll just speak for myself here. Purism or historical accuracy etc. have nothing to do with my increasing use of old tools and long-practiced methods. It's not about using old tools for the sake of it, but because of the experience of woodworking when using them and the results achieved by using them. In another thread I wrote the following, shich I think sums up what drives me with respect to historical tools and methods:
Why is it that Thomas Moser, or contemporary Stickley factory furniture, or even Ethan Allen for that matter, while quite nice and with appropriate refinement as far as squareness, uniformity, gaps etc. is not nearly so appealling to me as most of the originals I see? Why do the antiques kick the butts of these extremely well-crafted reproductions? I am dogged by this question. I'm in the camp of thoese who struggle to understand the sensibilities, processes, tools, materials, methods of work, time constraints, material constraints, and anything else we can think of to try to assemble the pallette from which these masterworks we admire were created with the hopes that if we work from the same pallette, we might capture some of what is great about those works. I think it's a worthy endeavor.
As for the process, I don't enjoy setting up or using things like Dominos, Wood Rats, Incra Jigs, etc. nearly as much as using hand saws, planes, etc.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled