Hi- I work with alot of curly maple, birds eye and cherry and want to finish off each piece by hand planing and or scraping. I want to get the LN 4 1/2 with york pitch and one of the scraper planes. I would like to know from experienced woodworkers which one or two would be the best for thiese types of wood. Thanks
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast
-
Our favorite articles and videos
-
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
The best I have found for figured wood is the Clark and Williams smoother.
I get great results on cherry and curly maple using a L-N #4 with york pitch frog, and then following up with an infill that also has york pitch and an iron ground at 30 deg. No need for a scraper after this process. I set the infill to take wisper thin shavings, the surface left by the infill is quite a bit smoother than the surface left by the L-N, this is why I use them in tandem.
Ron
Hi Ron,
I assume you go straight to finishing after planing w/ your york-pitch infill. Wouldn't anything that raises the grain defeat the purpose of high-polish smoothing? If so, what finishing process would you use on figured walnut that wouldn't raise the grain?
Thanks.
In most cases I do not go straight to finishing with the hand planed surface. If I wish to use color on the piece I would probably scuff it back up with 220 grit paper so as to get it to absorb the stain consistently. Even after sanding I've noticed that the surfaces worked with the plane do not tend to have the grain raising problems that one would encounter if they just depended on several steps of sanding with differents grits to arrive at the final surface. I much prefer hand planing and just a bit of sanding to a lot of messy sanding and my shop stays cleaner longer and I'm sure my lungs appreciate it. Even if you wear dust mask the sanding process leaves dust laying around your shop that gets airborne after you finish sanding and take the mask off. The less dust laying around the healthier your working enviroment will be. The price of a good infill may not seem so high when you consider it cuts your sanding by 80% and if you spend the kind of hours I do in my shop then it could very well effect your longevity.Ron
Over the years I've slowly accumulated a bit of experience with some wild grained woods, although admittedly, none of the ones I'm familiar with are on your list (wrong side of the pond)...
For the most part, I've foind that the L-N 4 1/2 copes really well when set with a fine tune and real sharp blade (I opted for the york pitch frog too). But occasionally I'll come across a board that's just that wee bit more cantankerous than the rest, causing the 4 1/2 to struggle a bit.
I've found that in situations like that, if I switch to my 5 1/2 (same frog and blade as the 4 1/2), the extra heft seems to give it more authority in the cut. I still need to plane at some real obscure angles to work with the grain as much as possible, but to date I've yet to see it struggle. I've heard others comment favourably on the performance of the all bronze smoothers too... the extra mass helping to maintain momentum through the cut.
Co-incidently, when using it on well behaved grain, I've found that when properly tuned it'll finish whe equal ease working with and against the grain; there's virtualy no difference in the finished cut.
Like you, I thought I'd need a scraper as insurance to back up the 4 1/2; to date I haven't needed to use it in anger.
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike
I work with the same woods every day. Neither curly cherry, curly maple, or birdseye presents a difficult task to a 4 1/2 yorkie as would some of the real tough exotic woods. I have both the 4 1/2 Yorkie and the LN large scraper, and both will work very well on these woods. I have had excellent results, and have not needed a 55° or 60° plane to achieve it. Hope this helps.
Hi Mike,
Reading your message, I felt like a Protestant in the Vatican. I am just finishing up a curly maple piece, and will put photos on Knots in a few weeks. You were asking about planes. I used a belt sander, followed by a random orbit sander followed by a hand held sanding block. It doesn't take long. It is beautifully smooth. I raised the grain with a light coat of analine dye stain, followed by a light sanding with 300 grit paper, followed by a coat of analine dye at my favorite strength, followed by two coats of Minwax clear sealer, which I will follow with three or four coats of Minwax Polyurathane.
I am not preaching what I do, nor am I criticizing the planing and scraping approach. Just describing what works for me. I tried the analine on some scraped curly maple, but I like the effect better on the sanded version. It is possible that I am just not very knowledgeable, or that my training is lacking, but I find it hard to believe that planing and scraping can give a much better finish than I get now. I contacted the folks at the Bartley collection. They make expensive furniture reproduction kits. I have seen the result and it looks good to me. They are nice folks and they gave me the name of the place to buy the aniline dye color that they use. I have been using it ever since.
My mind is wide open, as are my eyes. I wish I could see your piece when it is finished. I'd be happy to switch gears and use a different system. Please post photos of your furniture when you finish some. Photos are perfect for showing off a finish, but it is the best we can do here.
Hope that you don't think less of me for using a more "Norm Abrams" approach. I am 63, but still trying to learn. I don't want to invest in the planes and scrapers until I see the reason to do so. Planes seem to be VERY expensive compared to power tools.
I belong to a woodworking club. I am going to try to find someone around here who uses planes and scrapers on curly maple and do a side by side comparison to see what I can see. Indeed, it may be fun to have curly maple pieces brought to our club meeting which have been smoothed by the two different approaches, and see if the members can tell which is which. Even that isn't a perfect test, since one of the two methods could have been applied in a less-than-optimal fashion. But it is probably a good-enough test.
Enjoy,
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
I am a fan of hand-planed surfaces for several reasons: NO SAW DUST, no noise (other than the swiiiiisssshhhhhtttt of the shaving coming off the wood), a glass-smooth surface, speed in getting a high-quality surface, etc.
Hand planes are also very good a trimming minute portions of wood to get that "perfect" fit. They can also (quickly, easily, and safely) do things -- remove .001" or .005" from, say, a tenon, chamfering, round-overs, etc. -- that require extensive set-up, test cuts, and/or (complicated) jigs to do on power tools.
And, if you get into molding planes, you can put profiles on a piece of wood that a router or shaper can't touch unless you want to pay for custom-made bit profiles.....
I suspect that none of this is "new" to you.
<< I don't want to invest in the planes and scrapers until I see the reason to do so. Planes seem to be VERY expensive compared to power tools. >>
They can be, but don't necessarily have to be.
For around $25 to $50 (often including P & P), you can get a perfectly nice #3, #4, or #5 pre-WW II Stanley hand plane in nice user shape. It may, perhaps, require a little TLC to bring it back to fine working trim, but that's not hard, and doesn't take all that long (usually only a couple of hours). And, if it turns out that the iron does not take or hold an edge to your satisfaction, a Hock or LN replacement iron (and chip breaker) can be had for about $70 together. Regardless of whether the iron needs replaced, once tuned up, an old Stanley plane will do just about everything that a new LN, LV, or Clifton will. It may not perform quite as well on cranky grain or on exotics, but certainly for most domestic hard (and soft) woods, it will do a beautiful job.
Some keys to successful hand planing:
1) Set the plane up for its function: tight mouth/thin shaving for fine work, (final) smoothing, and cranky-grained woods; open mouth/thicker shaving for rough/intermediate work or quickly removing lots of wood.
2) Tune the plane for a flat/co-planer sole: for most purposes, the sole needs to be at least co-planer in four areas: on the toe, just in front of the mouth (about ½"), just behind the mouth (again, about ½"), and the heel. For final smoothing, a completely flat sole (arguably -- some will disagree with this) works very well. OTOH, Japanese wooden pull smoothers (and other Japanese-style planes, as well) are simply co-planer at the spots mentioned above; they deliberately make the areas in between concave.
3) A clean mouth: flat, square, smooth (no jagged edges), tight where appropriate (smoothers).
4) A SHARP iron. This may be the most important single aspect to successful hand planing. How important? With a SHARP iron, you can take wispy thin shavings off end-grain pine with a #8 jointer plane; with a dull or not-so-sharp iron, you'll just tear the wood up; at best, you'll get dust.
5) Good, solid mating surfaces: frog to casting, iron to frog, chip breaker to iron, lever cap to chip breaker, etc. Helps prevent chatter, set-back, clogging, etc.
6) Practice. The more hand planing you do, the better (and faster, if that matters) you get at it. Also, the more you use your planes, the more uses you will find for them. After a relatively short period of hand plane use, they will become an indispensable part of your tool and technique repertoire.
Obviously, the above list is not all-inclusive, nor is it intended to be; it is merely intended to give a few examples.
My plane collec...er...inventory contains a bunch of old Stanleys in various sizes, a couple of other brands (also oldies), a couple of new Cliftons (shoulder planes), and some LNs. I use the old Stanleys most of the time for most planing functions, but there are times when I reach for one of the LNs first, because it will do a better job than the Stanley. Being a Neanderthal, I admittedly LIKE hand planes and hand planing -- a lot; they are my favorite tools, and planing is one of my favorite parts of woodworking. So....I can't (and won't) claim that I am unbiased about them, BUT, I also remain cognizant that hand planes are only a tool for planing and that planing is only a means to an end -- the finished piece of furniture.
_____
As far as (card) scrapers go, just get a set: the LNs are $15 (set of 2: thick and thin); the Cliftons about $15 (set of 3: rectangular, goose neck, rounded end rectangular); Sandvik/Bahco also makes nice scrapers for about the same price. You can also make your own out of an old saw, or just about any thin (.020" - .045") steel sheeting. A purpose-made burnisher is nice, but a smooth-shafted screw driver will work just as well. One very-nice-to-have accessory is a scraper holder (saves burns [card scrapers get pretty hot in use] and wear & tear on your thumbs and hands). Veritas makes a really nice one, but it's a bit pricey (~ $35 - $40); it's well-made: I've had mine for over 20 years now. Making your own wooden scraper holder is a couple of hour project, if you don't want to buy one. A scraper will smooth wood that just about nothing else (except sand paper) will, including knots. One of the best, handiest, most effective, and least expensive woodworking tools available; every woodworker should have a card scraper or two in his/her tool box!!
_____
So...all this is just a long-winded way to say, get yourself an old Stanley hand plane at a yard or estate sale or off eBay for a couple of bucks, tune it up if necessary, replace the iron if necessary, and make some shavings. You'll learn a lot about planes in the process and will learn a bit more about wood, too. I think that you will enjoy creating a glass-smooth surface with so little effort, noise, and dust. There really is something magical about pulling those almost translucently thin fluffy shavings off a lovely piece of figured walnut.....
Hope you and your family had a great Thanksgiving!
Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
James,
Thank you very much for your very instructive message. I hope that you keep a copy of that to send to others in the future.We have conversed many times before. As you know, I am trying to learn about planes. I even took a class and built one. I can take very small shavings with the planes that I have. I have tuned all five of them up, and they are sharp too. But old habits die slowly, even if I am trying to open up to new methods. I put so much time into the cabinets that I am finishing up now, that I didn't want to take any chances with them. I did plane and scrape some or my curley maple to get the feel of it and to see how it would react to the aniline dye stain. Not bad, but I liked the effect on the highly sanded wood better. Possibly due to my not being an expert on planing and scraping. I can understand the pleasure that would come from the quiet use of planes as opposed to the machines. When I put my ear protectors on, I don't hear much -- just a hum. I believe that planing is like coming from a different culture. One culture is not better than another, just different. I do want to learn both cultures. The costs you quoted for used planes is about what I have paid. That is not expensive. I have been in a few threads in which others have focussed on "only buying the best". I am more of a supporter of buying what is good enough. I have the feeling, as you hinted, that well tuned stanleys will do just fine for my purposes. Thanksgiving was great. Hope yours was too.
By the way, in my attempt to expand in woodworking, I bought the chip carving knives and am giving that a shot. I have years of using gauges. They don't translate directly to using the knife, but it is a fun learning experience. Enjoy,
Mel
PS and I really appreciate the time and wisdom you put into your message to me.Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel
Besides all the great points that James brought up, I would also like to add one issue with belt sanding vs. hand planing.
I used to use sanders, just as you described, to flatten and level table tops, and prep surfaces for finish. The problem I would occassionally run into was thinking that everything was smooth and ready, only to find out after applying finish that I had a little low spot here or there, because I lingered a little toooooooooo long with the sander in one spot, leveling an area. With a properly tuned plane, this possibility is eliminated. I just keep planing until the shavings are full width and length. Once I was able to consistantly and properly prepare stock, it really didn't take long to get, say, a table top flat. In fact, now, with a lot of experience, I think it's much faster for me now, and no SAW DUST pasty balls up my nose and in my eyes!!! Sorry for the graphic!
Jeff
Jeff,
Thanks for the benefit of your experience. Experience with planes is not my strong suit, but I am trying. I am also trying to find out where the real benefits lie. You helped out greatly there.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
You're quite welcome; I'm glad that I could pass on something that is of use to you, particularly since I have learned so much from your posts.
Your analogy about hand planing (and hand tool use in general) being like coming from another culture is probably more accurate than most of us believe. I periodically teach hand-tool classes at the local Woodcraft. Most of my students have been woodworkers who have only power tool experience. Many of them are amazed to learn what hand tools can do, how (relatively) easy they are to use, and how easily they can be integrated into a power tool shop.
Although tuned-up vintage planes are normally more-than-sufficient for most purposes, I think you owe it to yourself to use a top-of-the-line hand plane at least once, just so you know what a good plane is capable of. If the local Woodcraft, a friend, or one of the members of your woodworking club has a LN, ask them to let you test drive it. You won't be sorry you did.
As far as getting into using hand planes (and other hand tools), may I suggest that you make a small project -- say a table top shelf-type book or CD holder, a set of book ends, or even a cutting board -- using only hand tools? You'll find it to be an interesting, fun, and educational experience, and one that will give you a practical appreciation for an different approach to woodworking. It will also give you the practical experience and confidence to use hand panes on your next (big) project (As an aside, I agree that you shouldn't try a hand plane out on your current project, especially if you are not confident that you will get the results you're looking for; it would be a true shame to ruin a nice piece of furniture mucking about....). I think that you'll find that the entire (philosophical) approach is different (I don't mean this in any kind of mystical sense, but in the practical sense that hand-tool techniques and mind set are different from -- not better or worse than -- power-tool techniques and mind set.), and may be something that you eventually want to integrate into your woodworking practices to some degree.
Anyway.....
Thanksgiving was very nice; thank you!
Thanks for the continuous stream of thoughtful, interesting, and entertaining posts. They are part of what make this forum so much fun, so useful, and such a great place.Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
James,
As always, you are right. I have a friend, Alan (Planesaw) who gets down this way every once in a while. I hear he has a fine collection of planes and is quite knowledgeable. Maybe I can persuade him to give me a lesson and a chance to try an LN.Also, I started a thread a while back on "summer camp". I will take a course each summer. Hand tools is my biggest gap. Your idea of using only hand tools to make a small project is a good idea. My wife has a number of projects in line for me, but I will find a way to fit that in. For years I had an Apple at work and a PC at home. Having one of each kind (culture) taught me a lot. I need to do something similar with the two woodworking cultures. I will. You have been generous in sharing your accumulated wisdom. You are having an effect. I appreciate it.MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
<<As always, you are right.>> Thank you for the compliment, but I don't think I'd go that far: you give me waaaaaay too much credit.
<<For years I had an Apple at work and a PC at home. Having one of each kind (culture) taught me a lot.>> I face a similar situation: Mac at home and PC at work. I must agree with you: they really are two completely different cultures and mind sets.
I am glad that my influence is positive, and I hope that, as you learn more about and use more hand tools, they will become a pleasant and useful part of your wood working. After all, as hobbyists, if it ain't fun...then what's the point? (I think your way of wording this goes something like..."Measure your output in smiles per board foot.")Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
James,Sometimes, when having a discussion, one person takes a more extreme stand than they really believe, just to test something or to try to teach something. Who knows, maybe even I have done that. Like you, I really enjoy Knots. When I see someone taking an unrealistically one-sided view, sometimes I try to show them that their way surely works, but the "other" way may also work. My goal is get them to think about alternatives, which is what I was doing. I think you realized that. I responded to a message which attributed the popped grain in the curly maple to planing and scraping. I was pointing out that the "other" way also works pretty well. I wasn't pushing Norm's religion, just pointing out that it is not without its capabilities. I was being a little dramatic to make a point, and I apologize for that. Thinking back, I should have been straightforward. In the future, that is what I will do.You know that I have been moving towards handtools for a while. I made a Krenov type block plane. I bought a Stanley router plane for tuning tenons, and used it successfully. I have a Stanley rabbet plane which I also used for the same operation. Both worked, and I saw the differences between them. Good experience. I bought both a high and low angle Stanley block plane. I have a Craftsman jointer plane, and another Stanley. I have taken a lot of time to tune every one of them. That was a lot of work, but I learned a lot, and the planes now work much better than they used to.What I have not tried yet, and I am looking forward to, is taking a rough sawn planck and planing it down to what I need. I have a number of projects lined up before I get to that, but I will get to it. So now you know. I am not a died in the wool Norm-ite, but a fairly open minded person who is trying to learn the Neanderthal ways, and who respects those who practice them. Derek Cohen has given me advice on a few things. I have gotten info from Mike W. on tools for sharpening handsaws. I have gotten plans for making a bow saw so I can have my picture taken in the Tage Frid pose while cutting dovetails. :-)But remember, all of this has been changing only since I have been on Knots and met people like yourself. Up until last year, I never held a plane or cut a dovetail by hand, and I used dowels instead of M&T. Now I do almost all dovetails by hand, and just use M&T. Those are big changes for someone who spent close to 40 years in the motor-head camp. I have been influenced by lots of great Knots denizens. If I make a list, I will surely miss some of them who have helped me with this transformation. I have joined the Washington Woodworkers Guild and have been learning from them. I have taken a plane-making course and a Shaker box making course. I have been studying videotapes by Frank Klaus, Wayne Barton, and Nora Hall. I carved a PA Dutch spoon last week, and have been learning chip carving. I am used to using carving gouges, but the knife is a different thing! In a few weeks, I will post photos of my nearly finished "Fraternal Twin" hanging chests, and telling that interesting story. Then I will post photos of the "miniature mansion" that I made for my daughter. The dollhouse was started the week she was born, and the house (five stories tall) took seven years to build, but making the furnishings never stops. I have a few other things that I want to put in the Gallery, such as my two large carved eagles. After I do this, I think that the Knots denizens will have a better idea of what I do than then can gather from my impenetrable writing. I wish everyone would make more use of the Gallery to show what they are doing.Hope I didn't bore you too much with all of this. If you hadn't shown an interest in making me a well rounded woodworker, I wouldn't have written this. Oh well, now its out: I am not a mere disciple of the Norm-ians, although I do have a few plaid shirts.Auf wiedersehen. Danke schoen.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
<<Hope I didn't bore you too much with all of this.>>
Not in the least. Your comments are always well thought-out and interesting, and normally provoke some reflection on my part.
<<When I see someone taking an unrealistically one-sided view, sometimes I try to show them that their way surely works, but the "other" way may also work. My goal is get them to think about alternatives....>>
Sometimes it seems necessary to be a bit more extreme in one's statements than one would normally want to be to get someone else to think about other ideas. There are, unfortunately, a handful of Knots posters that seem rather full of themselves and their own views, and don't seem to be interested in other's ideas, except, perhaps, for the purpose of fueling acrimonious "debate." The more thoughtful Knots posters, including you, help keep 'em honest.
<<So now you know. I am not a died in the wool Norm-ite, but a fairly open minded person who is trying to learn the Neanderthal ways, and who respects those who practice them. Derek Cohen has given me advice on a few things. I have gotten info from Mike W. on tools for sharpening handsaws. I have gotten plans for making a bow saw so I can have my picture taken in the Tage Frid pose while cutting dovetails. :-) ...... Oh well, now its out: I am not a mere disciple of the Norm-ians, although I do have a few plaid shirts.>>
HAH!!! I knew it! You've finally seen the light and are giving up those electron-munching tailed apprentices for the enlightenment of handraulics (™ MW). Soon enough, my friend, soon enough, you'll shed those plaid Normite hair shirts and don the comfy coveralls and driving cap of an acolyte of St. Roy of Underhill!! And, I am looking forward to you posting those pictures of you in the Tage-Frid-cutting-dovetails-with-a-bow-saw pose! [All said, of course, with tongue firmly jammed in cheek!!] ;-)
But seriously, while I'll certainly encourage those interested to use hand tools and will gladly answer their questions as best I can, I'm not going to -- other than in a humourous, joking way -- knock anyone for the methods or tools they use to do their woodworking; that's entirely up to them; like you, I try simply to provide information on an alternative available for them.
Looking forward to seeing some of your work posted in the Gallery, and to seeing some of the results of your experiments with chip carving.
This one's been a fun and interesting thread.Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
James,
Well said.
Photos coming soon. We just got a nice digital camera, and the two cabinets are almost finished.Keep the faith. (The woodworking faith, of course.)
A presto,
Ciao,
MelPS ("a presto" = will contact you again soon)Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Hi Mel- This has become a very helpful post, I appreciate the responses. As to your post I will post my curly maple sideboard when I finish. I used basically the same process you used for figured maple except for the finish (shellac). I was always intrigued by hand planing and final scraping tops as opposed to sanding but always thought it was too much work for not much of a noticable difference.I was wrong !One day a friend of mine had me go over to his father's shop where he had just finished a curly maple table using a hand plane ( LN 4 1/2). The curl was so 3 dimensional it almost jumped out of the table! I thought it must be the wood but he showed me how he did this from an ordinary looking piece of scrap wood. I am sold on hand planing for all the reasons someone posted earlier. I could never get this kind of finish by using sand paper and abrading the wood. Try hand planing on you next project. Thanks
Mike,
Thank you for the info about your experience with a friend's curly maple finish that was achieved by hand planing. I really will look into that. I do want to learn what can be achieved that way. I can't wait to see you pictures. Do you really want to use shellac on a sideboard?? If someone puts a wet glass on it, you'll get a white circle. If someone spills an alcholic drink on it, it will remove the finish. I really recommend poly for a serving piece that is actually used. No worries with poly.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
If someone puts an icy glass and leaves it overnight, you might get a ring, but by no means in every case--particularly if dewaxed shellac is used.
If a martini is spilled and left for hours it is likely to create some damage, but spilled and wiped up with reasonable speed no problem.
But if you do want more protection, there is no reason to use polyurethane varnish on residential furniture. A traditional resin varnish will be virtually as protective assuming you take your shoes off before walking on the sideboard. It will be clearer and be easier to rub out. Behlen Rockhard or Pratt & Lambert 38 are good choices. If you want a wipe on version you can simply thin to the desired consistency.
Steve,
Thank you for the info about Behlen Rockhard and Pratt and Lambert 38. I will search them out and give them a try. Can you look at two pieces, one done with poly and one with resin varnish, and tell which is which? Is it easier to detect on very light wood than on dark wood? Thanks,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
If you use just one or two coats thin coats it will be hard to detect the difference, but anything over that and it isn't very hard to tell at all. You will also tell when it comes time to rub out the finish to the desired sheen. The natural resin varnish will be easier to work and to get an even sheen. Poly can be rubbed out, but it is more of a challenge and takes a bit more finesse to get even sheen. I've noticed the difference on both dark and light woods but haven't done both comparisons at once so I can't say which is easier to distinquish.
Nobody gets perfect results day in and day out on figured wood with just a smoother. You will need to scrape from time to time and perhaps even use a little sandpaper here and there.
The L-N plane you mentioned is tops. Get it and a set of L-N scraper blades and you should be set.
Mike,
An HNT Gordon smoother with a slightly curved (Just a wisker) iron is worth a try. If you have the blade set right, the 60* angle will wisk through any figured wood. If you come across a particularly gnarly wood, turn the blade around and it turns into a scraper.
regards,
Sean
Edited 11/29/2006 10:14 pm ET by Sean2112
Mike,
I don't own a sander and only use sandpaper to sharpen, but I agree with Mel on this one. I think we are asking too much of our planes. I don't believe there's any historic precedent for what we are doing either.
I think you are more efficient to use a hammer when a hammer is called for and a plane when a plane is called for. In your case, taking Jeff's comment, what you may need is a decent long plane to flatten the surface and remove the planer marks. You'll probably get some tearout. Fix that with homemade card scrapers (made from old saw blades) and sand paper. If I recall correctly FWW did a test of hand planed v. sanded surfaces. If I recall correctly the surfaces looked a lot different before the finish went on and no different after finish (neglecting any plane artifacts).
In general, I think you guys are trying to turn all of your planes into sanders. It seems to me that its an expensive and ineffective way to go. For some here, I suspect its a challenge to get a plane to perform in this way. That's fine. But let's not pretend this is an efficient way to work. Use your planes to take off a rough sawn surface, flatten a board, straighten an edge, or get a surface that's good enough. Beyond that, I say its more efficient to abandon your planes and scrape or sand.
Adam
Sanding surely isn't a very historical method of wood smoothing beyond small amounts of final smoothing. Sand paper, or shark skin, or rushes, were known and used of course, but as expendables, they add expense that doesn't occur when scraping is the final smoothing step. I'd suspect that until industrialization reduced the cost of glass paper, scrapers dominated. The earlier you look though the more it appears that wood was finished directly off the plane. Compare a "Queen Anne" table top with one from made in the "Heppelwhite" period.
Adam,
I'm going to have to disagree with you about turning hand planes into sanders.
Like virtually all woodworkers, I've done a fair amount of sanding, and gone through the often hours-long tedious chore of piloting a sander over the wood, changing grits, piloting a sander over the wood, changing grits, etc., almost ad infinitum. Amongst other things, it's really, really boring. I've pretty much quit doing that these days.
Now, I use a hand plane to do that job. Why? Avoidance of a lot of negatives associated with sanding: noise, saw dust that gets into and on everything, vibrating hands, an increased likelihood of inadvertently putting a dip (or 27) into the surface or of rounding over the edges, expense, more mess and stuff to clean up and throw away, and so forth; you get the idea.
IME, it is, in most cases, quite simply a lot more efficient to use a hand plane -- set up for smoothing -- to put the final surface on a project. (And I find it considerably more efficient to use hand planes -- vs sanding or even tailed apprentices -- to prep my boards and glued-up panels from start to finish. The caveat here is that nearly all of my projects are one-off; if I were doing production work, then the equation would quite obviously change.) A couple of passes and the surface on most of the woods that I regularly use (walnut, cherry, red oak, pine, maple) is smooth -- often glass smooth -- clean, and ready to finish. To get the same level of smoothness with a sander would require sanding through at least 600 or 800 grit.
To give you an example: a couple of nights ago, I tested my newly-arrived (that day) bronze #4½ on a walnut shelf part that I had glued up the previous day and had not yet surfaced, and that will go into a Shaker wall shelf for my daughter for Christmas. ONE PASS and the area I had just planed was as silky-smooth as polished marble, but with the warmth and beauty of walnut; this was with the plane fresh out of the box -- I did nothing to the plane or iron other than adjust the depth of cut. Only two of my planes have ever performed anywhere near that level: an old T-9 Stanley #4½ with a LN replacement iron & chip breaker, and a LN #5½. The rest of my smoothing planes do a very nice and very acceptable job of final smoothing, just not polished-marble smooth.....
As you have pointed out numerous times, not all hand planes need to be able to produce translucent shavings: it all depends on what the plane is being used for and asked to do. I fully agree with you that it makes little sense to set up a jack plane to take .001" shavings when what you really want to do is level the board quickly. On the other hand, if you want a silky-smooth polished finished surface, then you do need a plane set up such that will pull those fluffy thin translucent shavings off the board, and with no tear-out. None of this is news to you, but from some of your comments, it appears that you may be limiting yourself by apparently not taking full advantage of what your planes are capable of doing under the appropriate circumstances and for the appropriate reasons; I may be mis-reading what you are trying to say?
At any rate, it has been my experience that hand planes are very versatile instruments, ones that can be set-up for and used to plow off huge, thick chunks of wood or to shave off "angel hair" to produce a lovely final surface on a nearly-completed project, as well as just about anything in between those extremes.
[As an aside, I am NOT advocating the abandonment of sandpaper, for it certainly has its uses. It's simply my preference not to use it for preparing most surfaces for finishing. There are times, IME, where sandpaper is the best way to go, but as I gain more skill with a hand plane (and with scrapers), I find those times to be fewer and farther between.]
<<..or get a surface that's good enough. >> I don't know that we really disagree here; I suspect that it's merely a matter of what one's definition of "good enough" is....
I await your return comments with great anticipation. :-)Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
Keep in mind that I'm a hand plane advocate, right? So I'm not talking about the benefits of using hand planes. I'm talking about the benefits of using hand planes for figured woods.Steve is right about everything he said. The only thing I would add is that they tended not to use very curly wood, or at least it is exceptional, and probably scraped.So the question isn't "is it worth using planes?" Because I agree with you 100%. Rather, the question is: "should the OP buy a special plane to work figured wood, or just buy or use a run of the mill plane and sand when he encounters areas of difficult grain?"I'm saying skip the fancy plane and sand. Wot say ye?Adam
Adam for hobbiest woodworkers the expense of an infill plane to produce a final surface on their projects probably could not be justified, however I work in my shop full time. I use machines to do most of my surfacing and then use smoothing planes to help skip a lot of the sanding chores. It is faster and it reduces my exposure to all that sanding dust. I can justify the expense based on time savings and the health benefits.Ron
Adam,
<<Keep in mind that I'm a hand plane advocate, right?>>
Not only that, but also an advocate for the use of hand tools in general and of historical/traditional woodworking methods and techniques.
<< Rather, the question is: "should the OP buy a special plane to work figured wood, or just buy or use a run of the mill plane and sand when he encounters areas of difficult grain?" .... I'm saying skip the fancy plane and sand. Wot say ye?>>
Short answer is, it depends on whether using cranky-grained woods is a one-time or very occasional thing or whether it is a regular part of the OP's woodworking routine. My impression is that the OP regularly builds from these woods. Based on that (possibly erroneous) assumption, I would say that it is probably worth spending the money on a "fancy" hand plane that will easily and reliably handle the gnarly grain. (I have to admit a serious bias here: I really, really detest sanding....for all the reasons listed in previous posts....so much so, that if there is even a semblance of a "reasonable" way to avoid it, I will.... That certainly doesn't make it the best way to approach putting the final surface on the wood; it's merely my approach, based on my preferences...) I also like the surface feel gained through planing vs that through sanding. (As an aside, yes, I read the article a couple of issues back about [not] being able to tell the difference between a sanded and a planed surface once the shellac, varnish, etc. had been applied; I'm not sure that I agree with the conclusions, but I have no empirical evidence to the contrary, so I'll just let that one alone for now....)
There are other factors that the OP will have to decide on: tool budget, preferred work methods, etc.
So...I suspect that we will probably continue to disagree on this one, but that's ok. I always enjoy your posts (and articles -- your articles are one of the two main reasons I subscribe to PWW) and usually learn something new from them. Keep 'em coming!!!Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
James,
There's been a lot of interesting and informative discussion about planing and scraping recently in Knots. I for one am grateful for all the related experiences and explanations, being a newby to such things after a decade of machine tool use.
However, one thing about these discussions always botheres me a little - the propensity for some of even the most reasoned and knowledgeable posters to gravitate to a particular camp, school, doctrine or even philosophy, along with an inbuilt opposition to other creeds and traditions.
Personally I think that Socrates had the right idea - the dialectic, in which a thesis and its antithesis are synthesised into a "higher" philosophy that encompasses and resolves them both. The new philosophy in turn generates its antithesis and these too are synthesised, ad infinitum. The process is intended to lead to doctrines which are more and more representative of (and therefore effective in) the real world.
Well, that may a bit high-falutin for mere woodwork; so a plainer way to say it is that we can use any and all techniques as we choose, often synthesising the old ways with the new to become more effective woodworkers. Moreover, the selected methods can change on a whim for the pleasure of playing with them rather than seeking some ultimate efficiency.
In all events, planing and scraping need not exclude the use of sandpaper or an RO to mount it on (or vice versa).
Incidentally, even machine tools such as ROs need the operator to acquire skill and/or better engineering design, if quality work is to be achieved. If you want to avoid dips and rounded edges, use a sanding frame and/or a hard pad. To get these facilities (and to avoid excessive noise or vibration) you will need to buy a better RO, just as Records cannot do what LN planes do.
It ain't just planing and scraping that require the acquisition of experience and skill - electrified tools are not meant to be robotic.
I won't be giving up any kinds of tools or skills myself, as I like them all. In fact,I'd like to acquire more and may have a go at carving - with both traditional chisels and one of them Bosch motorised things. Will I need to be excommunicated by this or that woodworking church? I hope not as I wish to sing in all their choirs.
Lataxe
Sire,
You are in need of saluting, not excommunication.It is those of a rigid mind set that are missing out on woodworking life-and may benefit from an inquisition.
But I must insist that you address your shyness of the simple but effective card scraper and its variations - see what Skidoo wrote.
Edited 12/1/2006 4:03 pm by philip
Personally I think that Socrates had the right idea - the dialectic, in which a thesis and its antithesis are synthesised into a "higher" philosophy that encompasses and resolves them both. The new philosophy in turn generates its antithesis and these too are synthesised, ad infinitum. The process is intended to lead to doctrines which are more and more representative of (and therefore effective in) the real world.
read an argument but do nothing about it cos the original poster's already agued it to death....?? where's the fun in that..?? sheesh... ye've been here long enough to figure out how this place works... haven't ya learned nuffin..??
<said VERY tongue in cheek..
;)
sides... folk already think I'm nutz cos I work wood with handraulics... if I start arguing with myself too they'll come t cart me off....Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Lataxe old chap,
I don't disagree with a single thing you've said in your most recent posting above.
Perhaps my (over-)enthusiasm for hand tools sometimes (often?) leads readers to conclude that I am a closed-minded doctrinaire Neanderthal who loathes power tools and all associated with them. Not so! I worked with power tools exclusively for many years (back then, my few forays into the hand tool world were, shall we say, "spectacularly unsuccessful" and that, in turn, led me to more or less forego hand tools until relatively recently). I gave them up (OK -- except for the drill press for certain things) because I had what I decided was one too many close calls with non-surgical digit removal on a table saw (I still have all 10 intact...), and concluded that I'd better quit while I was ahead. Other reasons include an intense dislike of the noise and especially the dust associated with power tool usage, along with dissatisfaction with the frequent necessity to build complicated jigs to do things that I later found to be very easy to do directly with hand tools. As well, there are additional reasons with which I will not bore you.
Regardless of the fact that I happen to prefer hand tools and use them (almost) exclusively, to be perhaps excessively blunt, I really don't care what kind of tools other (hobbyist) woodworkers use. To clarify: one's choice of tools are exactly that -- one's choice. I certainly have no say in the matter; a particular individual's decisions in that regard are made for reasons that suit that individual and his/her desires, needs, wants, requirements, etc. If one is doing woodworking for a hobby, it is my firm belief that one should do it in the way(s) that provide the most satisfaction, fun, enjoyment, and allow the woodworker to do his/her best work. Whether, for a given individual, that involves power tools exclusively, hand tools exclusively, a mixture of the two, expensive, inexpensive, new, old, Stanley, Grizzly, Record, Hammer, LN, Delta, Marples, Jet, ECE, Robert Sorby, Buck Brothers, LV, Crown, AI, etc. [did I miss anyone's favorites? ;-) ], is in my view, entirely up to that individual.
Now, I will encourage people who are (potentially) interested in hand tools to give them a try, will make recommendations to them, and will gladly attempt to answer their questions as best I can, all based on my (rather meager) knowledge and experience. And, if I "know" someone -- such as yourself -- I will even jokingly pull one's chain a bit in regard to using tailed apprentices, etc., but one must remember that all chain jerking is strictly in jest.
FWIW, I also like to read the threads that primarily involve power tools as much as the ones that are hand-tool oriented or general in nature, because they, too, are entertaining and contain information and wisdom from which I have greatly benefited. One attraction is that there are often some very good stories in those threads. And who can't help but be entertained -- even if it does involve a bit of Schadenfreude -- by the incessant and churlish argumentativeness in threads about a certain brand of German-made tools vs a certain brand of American-made tools?
To get back to the subject at hand, I avoid sanding whenever possible, simply because I dislike sanding and have found that planing and scraping produce a very suitable surface. BUT, when I have to sand, I do. For those who prefer sanding to planing, that's fine with me; I'll simply mention that there are alternatives.
Need ye be excommunicated from this or that woodworking church? Beats me -- ask St. Norm or St. Roy..... ;-)Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
Lataxe, "the propensity for some of even the most reasoned and knowledgeable posters to gravitate to a particular camp, school, doctrine or even philosophy, along with an inbuilt opposition to other creeds and traditions."I absolutely disagree with you. This isn't a popularity contest and its not my job to be right or give everyone else my sensible middle of the road approach. Viewed in a different light, yours is a philosophy of arrogance. I argue my side of the discussion and trust the reader to pick and choose what he or she wants of it. This is the advantage and beauty of purism. It offers more than one may want, but it leaves the decision of how much to adopt up to the reader. The middle of the road approach is often obvious and offers little to those who want a little more. So I don't mean to be harsh. The approach you offer may be the one that most people adopt, but its not necessarily the most helpful here.Case in point, there now ARE planes available that weren't even 10 years ago that can do what the OP wants. Those planes exist to fulfill the needs of hand plane purists. We need those guys because they increase the choices we have available to us.Adam
Hi Adam--using your message as a springboard...diving in where I shouldn't...
Ron mentioned that a smoothing plane which removes the necessity of sanding [as much as is possible I suspect] is a valid purchase for one making a living from woodwork vs. a hobbyist.
Aside from the fact I think it is actually the hobbymaker market which keeps us toolmakers busy, I think from my own professional cabinet maker life, scraping figured or stubborn woods and sanding when scraping isn't efficient is, well, more efficient.
I also think in this subject of planing figured woods there is overall a lack of definition of "figured wood." For instance, I have some fairly unplanable Bubinga which lacks what nearly anyone would call figure. While I have not tried one of Philip's planes, a Sauer & Steiner, nor a Holtey [nor possibly ever will], neither my LN 4 1/2, my vintage Preston infill, nor my LV low angle smoother using various blades would tame tear out. Scrapers to the rescue. And sandpaper.
So I don't find that fine smoothers are necessarily an end-all answer. There are many woods which simply refuse to allow a final surface to be made from a plane. And not all of it is dense, hard, figured wood. I have some East African Camphor burl which none of the above planes would perform a final smoothing on either. And some "simple" Pine, Cedar, CVG old-growth Douglas Fir...and for those, even a scraper isn't much of a good option.
Now, do I still find these finer planes do a better job than even a well tuned vintage Sargent, Stanley or a woodie? Yes, in many cases. Maybe even a lot of cases. But I do think it is a mistake to expect a magic bullet will work all woods equally. Scrapers and sandpaper are still a great, viable option.
Now, this is all aside from what we each decide are acceptable finished surfaces. That would be a wild topic in itself...
Take care, Mike
Mike,
You are a wise owl and probably a dialectician to boot. :-)
That last aside, posing the question about what constitutes an acceptable finish, is indeed a great topic. You should start that thread!
Here is a tentative premise: the aceptability of the finish is firstly determined by the nature of the piece and its place in the taxonomy of furniture types. For example:
* Even a smooth walnut or mahogany, if used in one o' them Old Fashioned pieces, should have the grain filled and be French Polished (or modern equivalent) requiring 600 grit smoothness (or scraper-wrought equivalent - which is measured how, I wonder).
* Greenwood chairs made direct from the tree trunk with froe, axe, drawknife and pole lathe should show the tool marks and never see anything that can be classed as a smoothing tool. A simple oil and wax finish, if any, is appropriate.
Well, I could posit "rules" like this all night. But you should start a new thread as it was your topic (and a very good one).
Lataxe
I agree with you. I seem to accomplish more work done if I don't try to do everything with a plane, and some times I only use scrapers, because a plane is to complcated. I get lots done with a good scraper. I made 28 2'X3' raised panels for my living room walls from Alaska birch, and ended up scraping them to smooth them. the grain was so conrtary, and adjacent boards going different directions, it was impossible to not tear out, so I just used scrapers. Lots of work, but it looks nice. A well sharprened scraper is a thing of beauty, and moves lots of wood. Smoothing the joint of rails and stiles was done so nicely with a scraper, even though the grains are 90 degrees to each other, something hard to do with a plane.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled