Quick question on the comparison of a sanded vs. a handplaned surface. I know that if I begin sanding with 120/150 grit sandpaper and end with 220 to 320, I have the surface of my wood pretty much exactly where it needs to be for staining or applying an oil finish. My problem is this, I have used my handplanes to remove saw marks, but I have never known how a pass with with the handplane compared to that of sandpaper. So I always use the handplane and then sand just to be sure. Anyway, here is my question, should there be any further surface prep following the use of a handplane on the wood? What grit of sandpaper would you say a pass of a handplaned produces? I would like to not go the extra step with the sandpaper due to the surface a handplane leaves, but I guess I’m a little paranoid not having a great deal of experience with handplanes. After having written this, maybe I should just go by trial and error. Dunno. Any thoughts?
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
Hi Tobias,
Although this is sure to raise some debate, I'll go on record as saying that no abraded (sanded) surface is comparable to a properly planed (or scraped) surface.
The reason is, that no matter how fine a grit is used to abrade the surface, the end result is a surface of torn wood fibers that diffract and refract the light that shines on them. A cut surface on the other leaves a much clearer image of the wood below.
A way to visualize this is to think of the surface of the wood as a window. The sanded surface would be a frosted window, the cut surface would be more like an optically pure surface.
Of course, if you use a fine enough grit, you can get your scratches (frosting) fine enough that you exceed the limits of resolution by the human eye, but they still will disturb the light, it won't be as clear as if they weren't there in the first place.
Tom
Oh I almost forgot, what sanding proponents will argue, is that the optical quality of the surface is moot when you apply the finish.
To understand this, extend the analogy of the glass plate by pouring water over the frosted glass. The refractive index of the water acts as an itermediary between the refractive index of the glass and that of the air, so you can see through it again.
Edited 2/18/2005 11:43 am ET by tms
>> Although this is sure to raise some debate ...Some. :)It depends on the wood, and to a lesser extent, on the sandpaper. I can sand some woods to the point where you can see reflections in the surface. They look like they have already been finished. I have sanded pieces of wood so smooth they will wring together and stick like gage blocks (but only for a few seconds).Certainly 220 grit will never give the same look as a sharp plane. But that's like saying a rake won't give as nice a finish to concrete as a trowel. In my experience, the sanded surface doesn't even begin to get interesting until you get up into the 600 grit range. I can say with some confidence that no plane sharpened by mortal hands can give the same look to end grain white oak or Macassar ebony or African blackwood or a handful of other woods I've tried as 12,000 grit MicroMesh can. The ebony, in particular, looked like jewelry.I don't claim that these very highly polished surfaces are good preparation for subsequent finishing, because I've never applied any finish to them.
Hey Unc.<<I don't claim that these very highly polished surfaces are good preparation for subsequent finishing, because I've never applied any finish to them.>>Um, let's see, did you dry sand with 12,000 grit? If not, any sanding lubricant would be a de facto finish, in that it reduced the refraction by the wood surface.This is nit picking of course, on woods like ebony trying to get a planed or scraped surface is counter productive. I just like nit picking sometimes.Tom
Edited 2/18/2005 3:25 pm ET by tms
>> ... did you dry sand with 12,000 grit?
Any sanding lubricant that did not evaporate completely would be a de facto finish. But as it happened, yes, it was dry sanding all the way.
Okay, I'm impressed. But why dry sand at that grit? Doesn't your paper, or mesh, load up?Tom
>> Doesn't your paper, or mesh, load up?Some woods did, and I abandoned them early in the process. All the woods I ended up going all the way to 12,000 with were pretty hard and had little or no oil or pitch in them. Cocobolo, for instance, just didn't respond at all well.
Uncle,
This is a new one for me, before the finish is applied, most of us stop at 220, some go a bit higher, perhaps 400, but most believe beyond 220 is a waste of time.
How did you sand with 12000 grit, was this bare wood surface and did you use a machine?
>> ... most believe beyond 220 is a waste of time.You and they may be right. There are two issues here, what is the optimum surface for applying finish to, and how does a plane compare with sandpaper for achieving that surface.I was addressing only the second issue, reacting to the blanket statement that a plane will give a smoother surface than sandpaper. It's absolutely true that a sharp plane will give a smoother surface than 220 grit sandpaper. It's also absolutely true that on some woods, a fine enough grit sandpaper will give a much smoother surface than a plane can even hope to achieve.Whether you want a much smoother surface for finishing is a different and more complex question. Two factors that have already been mentioned are, will the finish stick to the wood if it's too smooth, and could anybody see the difference between smooth and smoother after the finish is applied? Another question is, assuming the discerning eye could see the difference, is the difference great enough to reward the extra effort? Blotching is another factor that might be affected, for good or ill, by finer sanding.I don't doubt that for some woods and some finishes, anything beyond 220 is a waste of effort, or even a disadvantage because of the adhesion factor. But I can easily imagine that on some woods, under some finishes, a 600 or 1,000 or even finer grit surface would be visibly superior to either a 220 grit or a hand planed surface. I know that without any finish, on several of the woods I tried, the difference in appearance between 220 and 600 grit was really striking. That difference might disappear under some finishes, but I can't believe it would disappear under all finishes.Going all the way up to 12,000 was an experiment, just to see what would happen. It was all hand sanding of bare wood, with a sanding block on the coarser grits and a firm sponge, supplied with the MicroMesh kit, from about 1,500 on up. As I said in a previous post, I never tried finishing any of my highly polished samples.
In spite of my love of handplanes, my favorite wood prep method is still to sand to 1500 using silicon carbide wet-or-dry paper, and then finish with very thin layers of varnish sanded into the wood with 1500 grit. I can use this method to get into strange shapes--like mouldings--which I can't do with planes (at least with my collection of planes. It's slow, but I have never seen a finish that looks the same. Woodworkers have complained and said "That's not right! You're polishing that wood!" So what? Polished wood looks great. Is it better than handplanes? No, just different. But it's way cool, and if you progress through the grits and don't skip, use a light to check for imperfections it's way faster than than you'd expect. It's worth a try guys. You may be surprised.CharlieI tell you, we are here to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different. --K Vonnegut
Since we're talking about planes, does anyone know about Fulton planes? There's an antique shop with 2 that are in OK shape, I just wanted to get some info.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I think you would do better to start a new thread. Many of the people who could answer your question have probably already dropped out of this discussion. :)
Agree 100% with your post.
Can add that there is this tendency when sanding, to remove wood fibers with abrasion in an uncontrolled manner, so the accuracy of your work quickly deteriorates, while you are in the process of creating fine dust which settles everywhere.
With careful light reflection, specially using a gloss finish, other than using a large drum or wide belt sander, I can always identify a sanded finish, as the surface is never perfectly flat, even if it's just a few thousands here and there.
tobias, it's fine ideal to go applying polish straight over a perfectly planed surface, but at my level I can't say I've ever seen anyone do it if they're making a living at the job. I have done it myself once or twice in the last thirty or so years just for fun on a very small item, but it's a sure way to make a loss unless you're going for specialised looks such as the scalloped, somewhat torn out rusticated look using curved bladed spokeshaves and planes.
As tms said the clarity of finely planed wood fibres far exceeds that of surfaces sanded to about 220- 240 grit. And as he also said once you apply a film polish over either type of surface preparation (so long as it's well done) it's near enough impossible to tell the difference. He's also right in saying that there's always a huge debate about the merits of either surface preparation method. I no longer really get involved in such debates. I already know what works and when certain techniques should be used, or not, and the arguments just go in one ear and out the other, which shows just how empty my head is, ha, ha.
But, it is all too easy to sand too fine in many cases. Some polishes find a bit of a key to establish a grip with the wood useful-- varnishes of most types being one, so cleanly cut planed fibres are good for this in most types of wood, and sanding finer than about 220 or 240 in almost all woods in almost all circumstances prior to applying a film forming polish is counter-productive. In coarse open grained woods like oak sanding below about 180 grit is really a waste of time-- the open pores are coaser than the grit size.
In fine grained woods like maple oversanding can also make the surface too smooth to take a stain, although a dye will still work. Sometimes if you want a better colour take up in fine grained woods with stain you need to leave the wood sanded a bit coarser to give the pigments somewhere to lodge.
There's almost always a little sanding to do however well your planing and scraping techniques are, but if you can get your planing technique fine enough that a little sanding at 180 or 220 grit is all that's required you'll be doing pretty well. There also some timbers that are a pig to plane, such as some of those with interlocked grain, and sanding from the beginning is probably the best option entirely. Slainte.
Sgian,
Reading this discussion makes me wonder- could more angels dance on the edge of a stanley #7 iron, or on a bit of 12,000 grit??
Cheers,
Ray
I don't think it matters Ray.
I'm certainly not going to waste any drinking time over the conundrum, ha, ha. Slainte.RJFurniture
Sorry Sgian,I think that drinking time, is the best time for this kind of endless argument.
When I have a pint in my hand, I'm even more full of myself, or full of something anyway.Tom
You ask a very good question. Lie-Nielson says a planed surface is better than a scraped surface, which is better than a sanded surface, etc. Other experts routinely sand their surfaces after planing. Some sand their surfaces after scraping. Still others claim planing and scraping can eliminate sanding altogether.
Perhaps FWW would like to write an article comparing the surfaces prepared different ways. I would certainly rather read that than yet another tool test.
Regards,
Dan
I always read articles preaching the beauty of a freshly scraped or planed surface as opposed to a sanded surface and this is what I was hoping to achieve. Short of sanding boiled linseed oil into a piece of wood with first 320 then 400 grit sandpaper, I have never looked and felt a piece of wood that made me believe that is as good as it gets. Also, if your going to sand after scraping, why scrape at all? Doesn't sanding completely reverse the effects of scraping or planing? Thanks for the reply by the way.
Whatever sinks your boat, I guess.
If you french polish, you are abrading the wood until you get the surface to look good.
Tobias,
This is the kind of question that can actually be fun to investigate!
A few years ago I squared samples of mahogany, maple, oak, and cherry with a handplane for precisely this purpose. After squaring, I kerfed each test piece to isolate the effects of various processes and experimented. For example, I tested dyes and stains on planed, scraped, and sanded surfaces and compared the results. I also tested various finishes such as shellac, oil-based varnish, lacquer, etc.
Some of my findings: I really like a hand-planed surface that's waxed in some applications; in others, it's entirely inappropriate. And for my money, it is seldom worth the effort to bother trying to stain maple. In most applications, I like oak with its pores filled. I often use a sanded-in oil finish because of the tactile satisfaction it evokes.
Have fun. Experiment. Learn what YOU like.
-Jazzdogg-
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.
I'm trying to work this out in my mind, so bear with me here.
Seems to me that unless you have a plane iron as wide as, or wider, than the piece of wood you are planing you are going to end up with ripples in the surface from the individual passes with the plane. Granted, each pass will be nicely cut rather than abraded, but how can the surface be level?
Dick Durbin
Tallahassee
Hey Dick,Allow me to suggest that if your plane is leaving ripples then either your technique or your plane is in need of some adjustment.Sorry, of course you're right, in that, there are irregularities left by planning, but they are not of the size that effects optical quality of the surface. With a careful combination of planing and scraping, you can achieve a smooth (to the touch) finish.If a gloss finish is then put over it, you will see in the reflection, the irregularities left by planing and scraping. Remember though, after a finish is put on, you're no longer seeing the surface of the wood directly.Not to belabor the physics but, it really comes down to refractive index (RI). Any time you have two light transmitting substances of differing RI, you will have refraction. A planed surface has a closer RI to air than does a sanded surface. A finished surface will be closer than either.Tom
The plane cuts level in the direction with the grain, as you push the plane. The longer the plane, the more level the cut.
During the final cut, for finishing you set the iron for very fine shavings and the corners of the iron should not be square, hence you don't form ridges, overlapping the cuts slightly, while pushing the plane at a slight angle. I believe a master at hand planes can get flat to within 0.002"
When sanding, you have nothing to support the abrasive media abrading into the wood, unlike the base of your plane, so you end up removing more material where the wood is softer, the grain changes, or where you don't apply equal pressure or strokes.
Nothing to support the media? What about a sanding block?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Must be my English.....
If you put a block between the media and the surface being sanded, you will sand the block and not the surface.
I'm not really referring to sanding by hand, but rather using an orbital or belt sander.
If you use a sanding block by hand as your system, I guess it will be difficult to do a lot of damage, other than scratching that nice smooth planed finish.
I said sanding block, not blocker. Haven't you ever used a piece of wood behind the sandpaper to give you a flat surface for the paper to conform to? I was referring to sanding by hand. If you really want the surface to come out looking good, you have to sand in the direction of the grain. If you use a random orbital sander and then stain the wood, you will have small curved scratches in the surface. If the grain is random, it won't be as obvious but if it's straight and/or very tight grain, it'll look really bad after the stain finds a place to go. It's the scratches that hold the stain. Dyes are different- they aren't particulate at the same level. Try sanding a piece of oak and maple with 180 grit disc on the orbital, then sand the other side by hand, in the direction of the grain. Stain both and see what you get.If you sand with a grit that's too fine, it won't hold stain very well and to an extreme, it won't accept the finish very well, either.If you use clear finish with no stain, the scratches won't be as obvious unless you look really closely.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
"I said sanding block, not blocker."
"Haven't you ever used a piece of wood behind the sandpaper to give you a flat surface for the paper to conform to?"
LOL, I was just jokin with you and besides my English being bad, my humor is very dry. So please accept my apology. I understood exactly what you meant.
I use to do a lot of sanding, hand, orbital, belt etc. but the fellows in this forum managed to change my ways. And yes, I have used rubber blocks with pins which hold the paper, wood blocks and all kinda blocks.
Today, I use hand planes with irons having the correct bevel angle for the type of wood being finished and only if I have to, I'll touch up with a scraper.
I'm on sanding abstinance, and only revert back to my bad ways if there is absolutely no other solution.
Had I run a big production shop, I would use drum and wide belt sanders and revert back to being a sanding junkie.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled