<!—-> <!—-><!—->
Handplanes for a Novice
<!—-> <!—->
This is my first post and I am looking on some advice on hand planes. Here is some background info that I hope will help. Apologies in advance if this is TOO MUCH detail but I’ll bet there are a lot of folks there that could fit this description…
<!—-> <!—->
- I have completed 12 projects over the last 7 years (My kids, wife and old house are the prime consumers of time), the most challenging being the shaker wall clock featured in FWW #157 as well as set cabinets for my whirlpool tub enclosure. (Simple mitered frame and panel doors on pocket hole frame). My next project will probably be Bob Keys quick and simple workbench. I would describe my level of craftsmanship just as “novice” .
- My basement shop currently consists of : Skill bench top table saw, basic craftsman router with table, Ridged compound miter saw, Delta thickness planer and 1 ½ hp dust collector. Porter cable circular saw , finish hailer , pancake compressor, random orbital sander and profile sander.
- I really enjoy woodworking, but after routing about 80 liner feet of maple cabinet door frames I could do without some of the noise and dust. I feel that moving over to some hand tools and may be a more enjoyable experience as well as one that will force me to slow down and hopefully increase my level of skill.
- I recently picked up a new $20 Stanley Block Plane (#12-247) and had a ball making some shavings on some scrap 2×4 stock. I haven’t tuned up the plane yet so I know I haven’t even scratched the surface…
- Most of my projects have been done using pine and hard maple. I can see future projects using cherry, oak and walnut.
<!—-> <!—->
OK finally now the question. Of the two kinds of planes I am considering which of each would you buy:
Adjustable Mouth Low angle Block Plane
1. New Stanley “Contractor Grade” Low angle Block Plane (12-960)
2. Veritas Low-Angle Block Plane
3. Lie-Nielson Low-Angle Block Plane
<!—-> <!—->
Smoothing Bench Plane
1. Stanley 12-904 –Contractor grade smooth bottom bench plane
2. Veritas #4 Smooth plane
3. Lie-Nielson #4 Smooth plane
4. A Low angle smoother (Veritas or Lie-Nielson)
<!—-> <!—->
I am not really interested in finding an old Stanley and tuning it up or buying a re-furbished one on ebay… It’s not a snob thing I just want start my own history with the tool… this may sound silly but it is just how i feel…. Regardless what is purchased I will most likely take a class on how to properly tune and use hand planes. I have been self (book, magazine, trial & error) taught up to this point and think it is time for some proper instruction.
<!—-> <!—->
What do you think? Are the more expensive planes worth it for the kind of stuff I do? If so would you go with Lie-Nielson or Veritas?
<!—-> <!—->
Thanks for reading this really long post..
Replies
I would start with Veritas for both the bench and block planes. They are good quality tools at affordable prices.
mike
RobD,
Welcome to the slippery side...hold onto your wallet. Here's the thing, the workbench changes your potential for making beautiful, graceful, proportional furniture. With the workbench, you can do hand joinery, glue up panels, prepare the surface for a beautiful finish. But to capitalize on that potential, some additional hand tools and big equipment is needed.
First, forget the block planes, one is enough for now. You need a jointer plane (#7) to flatten and joint and 4.5 for final surface prep. A bandsaw so you can resaw stock to proper thickness is required as soon as possible.
Rob,
This will go a bit further than answering just your hand plane questions, but you can extract what is useful to you and ignore the rest.
Here's a basic set of hand tools that you may find useful:
Hand planes:
Block Planes: a low angle (12.5°) adjustable-mouth block plane (probably the single most useful and versatile plane of them all); an adjustable-mouth standard angle (20°) block plane is also very handy and useful.
Bench Planes: a #4 or a #4-1/2 for a smoothing plane; a #5 for general purpose use or a #5-1/2 for general purpose and/or a large and heavy smoother; and either a #7 or a #8 for jointing edges and flattening the faces of boards; a #6 may be more useful for flattening faces and jointing, if you mostly do smaller-scale work like jewelry boxes, etc.
Other Planes: a scrub plane, if you're going to do your woodworking exclusively with hand tools, otherwise it's more or less optional -- get a "real" scrub plane here: it works much better than a converted bench/smoothing plane; a shoulder plane also comes in very handy; a router plane; other special-purpose planes – such as side rabbets, moulding planes, hollows & rounds, etc. -- can be added, as required.
General Comments on Hand Planes: My recommendation for vintage hand planes would be either old (pre-WWII) Stanleys or Millers Falls, Sargents, etc. (be prepared to do some fettling with the older tools) or new Lie-Nielsens (a bit on the expensive side); others will suggest the LV/Veritas planes or Clifton (moderate $$ to expensive). If you have really, really deep pockets, then you could go for an antique or modern infill plane or two. And, if you prefer -- or want to try -- wooden planes, ECE, Knight, and Clark & Williams -- to mention just a couple of the high-quality modern wooden plane makers -- make very nice ones, but they are not inexpensive. Old (antique) wooden planes and Japanese-style wooden planes are not my area of expertise, so I'll defer to someone else to advise you on them.
Chisels: a good set of bench chisels (you'll get lots of recommendations from others here; I like the Japanese chisels sold by Woodcraft and the Pfeil “Swiss-Made”, but there are many, many other good chisels out there), and a good mallet; there is also the option of vintage chisels; if you get Japanese chisels, also consider one of the Japanese chisel hammers. A couple of mortise chisels (¼”, 3/8”, and ½” are generally the most commonly used sizes) are also very useful. Specialized chisels -- such as skews, crank-necks, etc. -- can be added, as needed.
Saws: Take a look at the Japanese saws, as well as the western-style ones. A quality rip and cross-cut saw (one of each, to start); a good tenon and a good dovetail saw (LN makes really nice ones). A coping or fret saw and a bow saw can also be very handy, depending on the work you do. An Azibiki (Japanese mortise saw) is an incredibly useful little saw for a just few dollars. I use both Western and Japanese style saws.
Layout tools: a quality straight edge; a good 12” and a good 24” metal ruler (I like the center-finding ones); a good marking gauge (my favorite is the TiteMark); a marking knife; a bevel gauge; an accurate try square, and a high-quality combination square (you could go with one or the other at the beginning -- the combination square is more versatile; spend the money to get a quality – i.e., Starrett -- combination square; the cheaper ones are not worth the money or frustration…).
Boring tools: a good "egg-beater" hand drill (get an old Miller's Falls or old Stanley, etc); a good brace (again, get an old Miller's Falls or old Stanley, etc); a standard set of brad-point bits; either a handful of the auger bit sizes that you need for your work or perhaps a 32 ½ quarters set of Russell Jennings pattern auger bits for the brace. A set of gimlets and a hand counter-sink are also useful. You can get specialized bits, such as spoon bits or tapered reamers, if you have a need for them.
Misc tools: a sharpening system (oil, water, or diamond stones; or a sandpaper method); a couple of rasps and files (rasps: Nicholson #49 or #50, for example; the Aurious are very nice, but big $$$; files: a half-round, a round/rat tail, a 4-in hand, and a 6-to-10-inch-long flat smooth cut file should take care of most of your filing requirements; you can add specialised files, such as plane-maker’s floats, if the work you’re doing requires them); some hand screws and bar/pipe clamps big enough to fit your work (you'll never have enough clamps….); a flat and a round sole spoke shave (a concave and a convex spoke shave and/or chair devils, if you’re making [Windsor] chairs); a draw knife; a Brad or square awl; a card scraper (with holder, if desired) and burnisher (you can also use a smooth screwdriver shaft for this, instead of a dedicated burnisher); a good, solid work bench (buy or make yourself -- there are several virtues and disadvantages of either course of action); a bench hook, a shooting board, a mitre shooting board, and a mitre jack (you'll have to make these yourself ).
Books: A good reference library is indispensable; try these sites for woodworking books that you may find useful or interesting:
http://www.astragalpress.com/
http://www.blackburnbooks.com/
http://www.cambiumbooks.com/
http://www.woodworkerslibrary.com/
http://www.amazon.com
Here are some of my favorites:
Measure Once, Cut Twice (Jim Tolpin)
Essential Wood Carving Techniques (Dick Onians)
Grinling Gibbons and the Art of Carving (David Esterly)
Hand Tools (Aldren Watson)
Old Ways of Working Wood (Alex Bealer)
Dictionary of Woodworking Tools (R. A. Salaman)
The Handplane Book (Garrett Hack)
Furniture Making Techniques [Vol 1, 2, & 3] (David Charlesworth)
Choosing and Using Hand Tools (Andy Rae)
Restoring, Tuning, and Using Classic Handtools (Mike Dunbar)
American Furniture of the 18th Century (Jeff Greene)
The Workbench Book (Scott Landis)
The Toolbox Book (Jim Tolpin)
Traditional Woodworking Handtools (Graham Blackburn)
Taunton's Best of/New Best of FWW & FWW On... _____ [your subject of interest -hand planes, hand tools, finishing, etc.]
The Complete Dovetail (Ian Kirby)
The Woodworker's Guide to Hand Tools (Peter Korn)
Classic Hand Tools (Garrett Hack)
Woodcarving: Tools, Materials, & Equipment [Vol 1 & 2] (Chris Pye)
Complete Illustrated Guide to Period Furniture Details (Lonnie Bird)
Instructional Videos: All of Rob Cosman’s woodworking DVDs are superb, as are all of David Charlesworth’s. I haven’t had a chance to watch Chris Schwartz’s DVDs yet, but they have gotten very positive reviews from those that have seen them. The LN web site also has some fairly specialised videos (like Tom Law’s DVD on sharpening hand saws) that you might find interesting and useful.
General Comments: While it's by no means an all-inclusive list, there's not a lot that you can't do with a tool set similar to that listed above, and it's not too terribly expensive to set yourself up with, especially if you buy good quality older tools off that (in)famous auction site (eBay), from some of the old tool dealers, or at the flea market and yard sales. And, hand tools (except for the bench) have the advantage of not taking up very much room, either in use or for storage, and are generally pretty quiet in use.
One last thing: buy the best quality tools you can afford, so you only have to buy them once...... (This also largely avoids having to “fight” the deficiencies of a poor-quality/cheap tool while you are trying to learn how to use it, and wondering whether the problem is your technique or the tool.)
Good luck, and have fun sliding down that slope!!
.
Tschüß!
James
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
Rob,
A well-tuned plane is truly a joy. I fought with the old Stanley planes I have for years, then made a dramatic change. Last year I bought a couple of Lie-Nielsen planes and the David Charlesworth three-video set on sharpening and using planes.
I wish I had done so years ago!! (Note: there's nothing wrong with old planes. You just have to be aware that it's a time commitment to learn how to clean them up, flatten the soles and sides, and tune everything up. I tried, but never really got the hang of it. The Lie-Nielsens required a touch of honing and I was off making shavings in minutes.)
As for my recommendations - two planes will get you started: a block plane and a #5. Personally, I wouldn't consider anything other than Lie-Nielsen. Yes, there are other quality planes out there, but for performance, price and service I'm sold on Lie-Nielsen.
A well-tuned #5 does a reasonable job of jointing and smoothing, and is a great size for using with a shooting board.
If money is no object, I'd get a block plane, a #4, #5 and a #7. I'd throw in a rabbet block plane for trimming up tenons as well. (Okay, I take that back. If money is no object, call Lie-Nielsen and ask for one of everything. And buy a couple extra for me while you're at it!!<GRIN>)
Regardless of what planes you buy, I strongly recommend the David Charlesworth videos - it doesn't matter how good the tool is if you don't know how to use it. I *thought* I knew how to use a plane until I saw his videos. Now instead of dreading my planes, I use them on every project.
Good Luck!!
J
Hi,
I really don't mean to be a smart Alec here, but I looked up the David Charlesworth videos, and the 1st is 77 minutes on plane sharpening???
What am I missing here?
Mike
Mike,
<<I really don't mean to be a smart Alec here, but I looked up the David Charlesworth videos, and the 1st is 77 minutes on plane sharpening???What am I missing here?>>
You're probably not missing anything.
He goes into quite a bit of detail and introduces a couple of interesting and useful ideas, such as his "ruler trick." But one of the main reasons for the length is that he paces his instruction a bit slower than do many other video instructors, and he tends to tell the viewer what he is going to demonstrate, demonstrates it, goes throught it step by step, and also comments on various aspects of what he is doing at the moment, including some of the potential pitfalls and also his rationale for doing it that specific way.
The slower pace allows you an opportunity to think about what/how he has done, without as much re-wind and re-play as is often necessary with other, faster-paced instructors.
I find it to be a refreshing change to the usual, FWIW.
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
Cool, Thanks for the response.
I may order the set.
Mike
Mike,
Great question. The David Charlesworth Plane Sharpening video is fairly comprehensive and covers the following topics:
Keeping your waterstones flat
Preparing the back of your blade
The Ruler Trick
Honing the Bevel
Preparing a curved blade
Re-sharpening a curved blade
Fettling the chipbreaker
Assembly of the blade and chipbreaker and setting up the plane
For me, learning how to quickly prepare a razor-sharp cambered edge on my plane blades mades this video worth it's weight in gold. While I had developed the skill to put a decent edge on a straight plane, I had been unable to create the cambered edge required for leaving a perfect finish on wood.
In short, the combination of a new Lie-Nielsen plane and the Charlesworth videos transformed my ability to use hand planes. I might have gotten there with years of practice, but within a few hours of watching the videos I was able to sharpen my plane, produce extremely fine shavings, and leave a finished surface on a board.
J
There was a series of articles in FWW many, many years ago, (when the publication was great…), by Roger Holmes. It was about basic furniture making and he stated that if you can have only one plane, it should be a #7. I tend to agree, as it can do just about everything. Now, I’d add a good block and a #4 or #4 ½ to that. As to brand, just bite the bullet and get the L-N’s, by the best, only cry once.
I inherited a bailey 6c in top shape. Have not yet used it, Any thoughts on that size?
Edited 4/5/2007 2:28 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
Nice plane, pretty good substitute for a #7. Tune it up and I’d use it for about everything. Now, if I were spending hard cash, I’d get the #7, but for free, go for it.
Thanks. I have a Record 7 that is tuned up. Just wondered if there was anything to be said about the 6.
Joe
Joe,
The #6 is a fine intermediate-size plane, good for jointer duty on shorter boards (faces and edges), and, with the mouth tightened up and the iron set for a very thin shaving, makes a pretty decent panel plane, as well.
FWIW, I use my #6 all the time on smaller projects..
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
I'm curious as to the application of a #6 as a plane for shooting boards. It would seem to be the right size.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,
<<I'm curious as to the application of a #6 as a plane for shooting boards. It would seem to be the right size.>>
My #6 gets used on the shooting board all the time. Its width is useful for thicker boards, the length is useful for straightness, and the weight/heft -- with a well-sharpened iron, of course -- gives it the momentum to plow right through red oak end grain, and such, leaving a very nice polished, clean surface.
Despite it being, IMO, an unjustly-maligned plane size, it's one of my favorites. I use mine as a shooting board plane, for flattening faces and jointing edges on shorter planks, and -- with the mouth tightened up -- as a long panel plane for final smoothing. It's also a convenient size for sticking in the tool bag when taking tools to another location to teach classes, etc.
Maybe I'm a bit wierd, but I actually like the #6 sized plane.
No accounting for taste, eh? ;-)
BTW, nice clean-up/tuning job in the pics in your post above!!!
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
Hi James,You're not the only one.Referring to my earlier post, http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?msg=35440.16, it's a common size (I'd venture to say, pretty well, the exclusive plane size,) used by cabinetmakers here. Breakdown of usage is maybe 85% using a No6, balance using a No. 5 1/2.Tradesmen here use the No 6 for most work. It's a good sized plane for shooting work, most definitely. As you said, momentum carries it along.I find it strange that it wasn't adopted more widely as it's the same length as the common wooden bench plane used for centuries. Did the No.5 take off as it was a smaller plane that fitted easily in a toolbox and a carpenter uses the plane mainly to block in a door, hence, not needing a large plane, or was it that a metal No.5 weighs a similar amount to a wooden jack plane (18" long.) Even on this point, I'm not certain.The number of cabinetmakers here is far less than the number of carpenters, I'd say about 1 to 6 or so. This may have influenced the different sales figures in the early days, but, a No.6 is by no means an uncommon size.Cheers,eddie
Edited 4/6/2007 4:53 pm by eddiefromAustralia
Hi Eddie,
<<Breakdown of usage is maybe 85% using a No6, balance using a No. 5 1/2.>>
Very interesting. Using a #6 fairly frequently for a number of different planing operations, I think that it's very versatile and a real winner. I really don't understand why so many people -- at least here in the US -- think that it (#6) is such a worthless/undesirable plane size. Based on my experiences using it, it seems to me that a #6 is a much better candidate for an "all-purpose, one-size-fits-all" plane (not that one of those really exists...) than a #5.
[And if you ever want to generate some raised eye brows, tell people that you use a #6 or a #8 to trim end grain (usually on a shooting board); that almost always generates some dis-believing looks....] ;-)
I also have no idea why, historically, the metal #5 has largely replaced the (wooden) #6 size plane. In general, I think that the #5 is a bit on the narrow and light side....
Anyway, it's very nice to learn that there are (many) others who also think the #6 is a good and useful size plane.
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
I'm in the market for a #6. For starters, I'd like to use it as a shooting board plane. I find the #5 just doesn't make it for me and a #7 is too heavy although it works for the most part.
Plus it would fille hole in my herd! So if anyone has a spare, don't care what shape it's in as long as it's a user, let me know. I can make her right.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I'm in the market for a #6. For starters, I'd like to use it as a shooting board plane. I find the #5 just doesn't make it for me and a #7 is too heavy although it works for the most part.
Bob, if I had to limit my selection to just two important qualities in a plane for a shooting board, neither of them would be plane length - that would be way down the list. A plane for a shooting board registers the area of the mouth against the side fence, not against the extremes of its sole. Take a look at the length of a #9, which is a dedicated mitre plane, or the Stanley #51 (a dedicated shooting plane), or a LV LA Jack (a highly recommended plane for the shooting board) - all are around the #5 1/2 in size, with the exception of the #9 which is closer to a #4 size. With the latter in mind, my other recommendation is the LV LA Smoother.
What are the two qualities that I consider important? One if heft (heavy is better for hard woods - but do not ignore the fact that small pieces may work fine - better - with a sharp blade on a small plane (even a block plane). The other preferred (but not essential) quality is a low cutting angle. This works best on end grain.
Even square sides are irrelevant since you just adjust the blade square (not the plane, per se).
The real point I wish to make is that a #6 is a "Jack of all Trades" and, as the saying goes, ".. a Master of None". Eddy (aka Andrew - Andrew, with respect, why the alias?) is fond of pushing a #6. Now he is far better qualified than I to comment on Australian cabinetmakers in training as he did complete a course and teaches in schools (while I am merely a hobbiest), but I still would contest that "the #6 is the plane of choice for all Australian cabinetmakers" (or words to that effect). This would make poppycock of all the traditional cabinetmakers that came out of the UK - why were coffin and infill smoothers traditionally only 7 1/2" long? (The answer is because a short smoother is more efficient than a long plane).
I do not have a #6 and probably never will. It is an inbetween size that I would not use ... perhaps if I wanted just one plane on a building site. Actually, I'd choose a #5 1/2. The closest I have to the length of a #6 is a HNT Gordon Trying Plane, a plane I love - but within its envelope.
My suggestion is that you get a #4 1/2, which will have the heft you want and a performance as a smoother that will compliment your #7. You could even use it on your shooting board.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Hi Derek,I'm busy writing a state training document at the moment, so I'll just keep this quickRe: 'eddie', I just use the alias as the internet is a fickle place - I signed up at Knots as the first site I visited and still keep the pseudonym. I've grown quite used to it.)As regards to the No.6, feel free to call a few workshops at your end of the world (preferably solid timber shops) and ask what size bench plane they use. I'd wager it's a No5 1/2 or No 6 amongst the formally trained cabinetmakers. Actually, I'd be keen to hear what they have to say -> this would be the higher end timber shops and not the kitchen specialists.If you can't get to a point on a board because of a slight dip in the surface, just lift the board up, throw a couple of plane shavings under the low spot, put it back down again and plane away - the board bends sufficiently around the shaving (if you don't believe it, try it the next time.) It's also interesting that the No.6 is termed a fore plane and not the 'jack' plane you referred to.It's more efficient to know how to use a single plane than to chop and change within reason. If a board's just too uneven for a longer plane, that's when the smoother comes into play.Historically, the smoother was used to clean up after the try plane, hence the very fine mouth and fine setting.The smoother has its place, it's just a 'specialty' plane and not a general bench one **these days** as sandpaper takes the place of a smoother. I think I used a smoothing plane a year or so ago.In the days of hand production, the smoother would have been set up with a very slightly cambered iron, whereas the jointer has a flat blade (which I know is now recommended to be slightly cambered by some -> the tradition is that the jointer blade is flat.)To remove part of the edge of a board if it's out of square when using a trying plane, you just move the plane so that the blade is only cutting the high side of the edge (i.e. edge of the blade tracks down the middle of the board.) Just as effective as using the curved blade, but, in my experience, if a trying plane is making an edge that's not square to the face of the board along it's length, it's because the board is still in wind or the vice is distorting the board somewhat.The wooden jack plane had a cambered blade and was used to do the rough work, including getting the edge approximately square using the standard technique espoused on the internet.A finer-set try plane was used to clean up after the jack.An even finer-set smoother was used to clean up after the trying plane. So, the UK cabinetmakers did use their smoothers, just they were a finishing plane and not a general bench one.Trust that this makes sense. It's semi-stream of consciousness and not properly edited as I'd better get back to work.Cheers,eddiewho, oddly enough, doesn't really mind or care what others use and in spite of the above statements; is happy to put forward one point of view as a counterpoint to the accepted internet wisdom without wanting to appear as though he is defending a position and is happy to share trade training as appropriate.
Edited 4/7/2007 2:05 am by eddiefromAustralia
Hi Eddie
Thanks for the detailed reply.
A question about the training courses you mention - are these predominantly handtool or powertool orientated and, if the latter, what role is extended to the handplane?
I was thinking about these issues as I stood working in my workshop surrounded by a million handtools, wondering if I and the world had been on the receiving end of a giant woodworking hoax - the hoax being that one needs any planes beyond a #6,. Has this been a sales gimick just to get me/us to buy all on my shelves and on the shelves and workbenches of millions around the world. No, I'm not being sarcastic - this is a genuine question. Of course we know the answer, so the real question is "why is there such a difference in the position you suggest and the one I (and others) follow?" Again, not sarcasm, but a genuine question.
I think that there is an answer, and it is that we may be viewing the process of cabinetmaking from two (different) vantages. Using longer planes, such as a #6 (or, as David Charlesworth prefers, a #5 1/2), is workable if this is simply at the tail end of a sequence that begins and involves machinery in the main. If all you are doing is working with flat timber, then the length is not a big issue. The fact that a #6 is cumbersome for most tasks, such as smoothing and trimming end grain, is glossed over.
Do I know what it is like to work this way? Why, yes I do. I have (as a dare) built an entire table using a jointer and a spokeshave (the latter was used for curves - even a jointer has a limitation!). All endgrain, bevelling and smoothing was done with the jointer.
Flattening with the LV BU Jointer:
View Image
Smoothing with the LV BU Jointer:
View Image
Planing tapers:
View Image
Finished Jarrah and Blackbutt table:
View Image
But I would not consider this an efficient way to work. I would also not expect a professional cabinetmaker to keep re-setting the one #6 he owns. I would expect that he just reaches over and picks up his smoother, block plane, jointer, etc as is needed. Of course this assumes that he is working predominently with handtools, or that handtools figure prominently in his finishing process. If this cabinetmaker used a #6 to fine tune work that is predominantly done on machines, then advocating a #6 is inappropriate in these discussions.
So, yes it can be done, but this philosophy does not fit in with the way I view cabinetmaking.
Back to you.
Kind regards from Perth
Derek
Hi Derek,
I think the proliferation of the No.5 planes is potentially due to carpenters and other trades such as shopfitting (UK joiner) needing a shorter plane for other uses and portability, not a longer one. A No.6 is a dog of a plane to carry around in a toolbox.
There's a lot more joiners/chippies than cabinetmakers, so I'd imagine that would be part of the issue, as well as the explosion of the 'gentleman woodworker' in the 1910-1920's and associated literature.
The smoother has a place and accounts for the sales of No.4 planes, as well as the 'cuteness' factor that may have played a point with the gentleman woodworker and the cost factor with the home handyman.
Re: training.
You have to know how to use hand tools properly before you graduate to powered equipment, eg: cut and pare a housing 3" wide by 6" long perfectly flat with a chisel, pare a chamfer, cut a trench, cut a housing, etc... I can do any operation by hand as required from roughing stock to ripping a 4" thick flitch to basic carving to marquetry/inlay/veneer work to fine joinery to ...... insert basic trade technique ... First year in college is hand tools only
Re: the position and number of planes.
I'm not sure - the bench cabinetmaker as a tradesman didn't surely have a multitude of planes at his disposal (excluding moulding planes) If someone has details of what was typically used, please speak up here!!!
I'm guessing that the bench planes were probably one jack plane, maybe two; a try plane and a smoother. Potentially a toothing plane as well if they did a large amount of veneering.
The multitude of metal planes on offer could have mirrored those used by differing trades, but, once again, how did so many get in circulation. I'm not sure. The 1 3/4" blade width of the No.3 or the even smaller No.2 surely would have been a pain to use if you were smoothing a panel.
Re: the No.6 being cumbersome - I'd challenge that it's not really when you know how to use it. I routinely use the plane to cut a chamfer on the edge of a panel or on a chair/table leg where it meets the floor. It's quicker and more accurate than using a block plane.
Re: the plane being used only with machine work: Yes, this is indeed the case these days.
However, If all you are doing is working with flat timber, then the length is not a big issue. The fact that a #6 is cumbersome for most tasks, such as smoothing and trimming end grain, is glossed over. If you used an 18" plane to flatten a board, then a similarly sized plane would be able to finish the job with ease.
I haven't got a reference text of work methods in the late part of the 19th century or earlier, so I'll defer to those that do.
Re: your statement that: "[you] would not consider [working with a single plane] an efficient way to work. I would also not expect a professional cabinetmaker to keep re-setting the one #6 he owns. I would expect that he just reaches over and picks up his smoother, block plane, jointer, etc as is needed. Of course this assumes that he is working predominently with handtools, or that handtools figure prominently in his finishing process.
It's a trivial matter to wind the blade in or out of a plane - the rest wouldn't change.
Do you think that you'd have done things much quicker with multiple planes on hand compared to using the one, given that most of the lines are straight?
I'd still state that the efficient way to work is to have the minimal number of tools on hand and in-use.
If I were to build the table by hand, I'd be using the longer plane for most tasks. The curved edges would be cut with a bowsaw/spokeshave if I couldn't use the bandsaw to rough them out. If sandpaper was out of the equation, then it'd either be a card scraper or a smoother to take the tracks of the try plane out of the surface. The lines of the taper on the leg make it ideal for a long, wide plane.
Anyway, back to the minutae of JPEG vs GIF vs bitmaps for image processing on a webpage.
Cheers,
eddie
Hi Derek,I'll reply to my post as I had to manually code the HTML and it's a right royal pain to redo it all as an edit.Forgot a scrub plane or really rough, old plane as part of the traditional bench kit.Cheers.
eddie,
Anyway, back to the minutae of JPEG vs GIF vs bitmaps for image processing on a webpage.
GIF, JPEG, and PNG, all all bitmap based image formats. A new vector format called SVG is on the horizon and is expected to become the main web page image format.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Thanks for that Bob,I'll look it up -> I've been asked to cover the basics of calculations at a yr12 (senior college) level in timber, metal, electronics, multimedia and general project management/costing/planning, relative to each area and the syllabus.The multimedia is my weakest area, but calculations are simple - raw image size, raw audio size, compressed sizes, for audio, video and movie; relating processor speed/graphics card size to requirements of presentation, etc...Cheers,eddie(as an aside, one site I visited said that png was a mixture of bitmap and vector-based graphics - any truth?)
Edited 4/7/2007 8:33 am by eddiefromAustralia
eddie,
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/PNG/
Somewhat confusing to me is that Microsoft also uses the .png (Portable Network Graphics) file suffix for its Picture It image software???????
As to it being a mixture, my understanding is that its a compressed raster image.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 4/7/2007 8:33 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
Edited 4/7/2007 8:41 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
"Eddy (aka Andrew - Andrew, with respect, why the alias?)"
I have wondered this myself, and thought that he might admire that great english ski jumper?
Dave
Hi Patto,You've got to admire his persistence and refusal to give in when faced with outstanding mediocrity. It's a really old nickname, I never was good at athletics.I had to close the yahoo account - too much spam.I've set up a new account, but the name will stay the same.On the plane, the corrugations are a minor setback but don't interfere too often. Cheers,eddie
This is good news. tghe Bailey I inherited is in like new condition except for some shelf wear. I intend to try it out very soon (relatively speaking...kids, job, SWABO .. but SOON)
Joe,The #6 is a really unfortunate size. Its way too small to make a good try plane. But I think the #8 is short. And it really is too long to make a good rough fore plane. Stanley made these tools because they could, not because there was a great hew and cry for them. And the #6 near as I can tell, has never been very popular with craftsmen. So use it and enjoy it, but my guess is when you have a comparable 5 and 7 and won't use this tool much.Adam
Adam:So far I have used it only to hold up a row of books, but have toyed with actually applying it to wood. I already have a 4 and a 7 in usin' condition. SO, we'll see.J
Hi Adam,The No.6 is the standard bench plane used by a cabinetmaker in Australia and is enshrined in trade training and trade use.As a case in point, it's the only plane used in (guild) trade school. I smooth and joint with a No.6 - of course, to smooth with the thing, the surface needs to be flat. They took a No 4 out of the tech college (trade school) toolbox about 8 years ago due to lack of need.It's of interest that the No.6 is a similar length to the wooden bench planes/jack planes, being about 18" long.Cheers,eddieedit: a 5 1/2 or No 6 are specified by our equivalent of the College of the Redwoods - the iron width and extra weight are an advantage over the No.5
Edited 4/5/2007 11:57 pm by eddiefromAustralia
g'day eddie - long time between drinks. My first plane was a #4 because of the two planes my father owned it was the one I could afford (the other was a 7) I now use a 5 or a 4 1/2 for most stuff except jointing when the 7 comes out.
The other really great advantage of fettling is that it allows time for the head to cool between marking the timber and making the first cut. On my first really expensive single piece of timber ( a large piece of cedar that provided a single 'wrap' for the outside of a chest of drawers) I re-fettled all 4 planes I then owned, had a beer, went to bed, sharpened the chisels (*6) and then checked the marks and prodeded to cut.
Dave
PS. not joking- it was a nerve wracking first step.
one of the past workshop managers at the furniture school here used a 6 for everything. I have apersonal suspicion that the currugations might get in the way for small work -there is a risk that corners might drop off the reference surface - but no evidence.
Oh yes, like the #7, you can pay for it with saved gym subscrptions if it is the only plane you own.
dave
COUld be you are right about the corregations. Mine is a 6c and has them. the egular 6 does not have them, but then neither do I have the regular 6.
Joe
Dead on the money and Roger knows that he's talking about. No. 7 should be the first.
Buy L-N and only cry once. Yep, that's it.
Rob,
I with the others. I don't like your choices. But just once, I'll play along: I think you'll be disappointed by the new Stanley planes. If you're a guy who loves tools- you be disappointed in 5-10 minutes. If you're a guy who just wants to get the job done and doesn't care that much about tools, then you'll be disappointed half way through that next job. Stanley just doesn't make good tools anymore.
You can't make a mistake with either LV or LN.
Now my opinion: If money (or lack thereof) is driving you toward the less expensive tools, reconsider getting older tools. What car did you learn to drive in? Was it a Porsche? What was the first car you did donuts in, or practiced a hand brake turn?
If you're thinking that Porsche makes great cars, and LN makes great planes, you're right. But the question is, will they be the teachers you need them to be?
My advice is to purchase the worst #5 you can find and make it good enough. This is a rite of passage. You're not seriously thinking of learning how to hone with that LN iron are you? Trying a back bevel just to see what it does with a cryogenically treated blade?
When I read the posts and the arguments about restoring old tools, its easy for me to forget how much fun this was. We don't communicate the joy of it well. We make it sound like drudgery. I found restoring tools to be euphoric in many ways. First comes the thrill of the hunt- finding your prey at a flea market or under a pile of stuff in an antique shop. Then there's the victory of man over cast iron and steel. Then there's the "run from the cops" thrill of cheating the system. With a little wit and a 5 dollar bill, you can have a plane almost as good as a $200-300 tool. You get that sense like you stole something and got away with it.
That's my vote anyway,
Adam
I agree with Adam that it is good fun to restore old tools. And I couldn't add anything to his description, except to comment that it sounds a bit too much like a branch office of Midnight Woodworking Tools.If you look at the current active thread on removing rust, you'll see that it can be pretty easy. Then if you want shine and don't care about collector value, you can use a buffing wheel.
All,<!----><!----><!---->
Thank you all for the advice!<!----><!---->
Adam,<!----><!---->
I noticed you recommend the #5. Is this also known as a "Jack Plane?" (I am still very early in the learning process) .. If so what do you think of the "bevel up" / low angle versions of these panes? From what I read they seem like simpler devices with more uses. <!----><!---->
I understand what you are saying about "learning" on a more expensive plane. This is why I included the "new" Stanley in my list. (Looks like that was a mistake.. )<!----><!---->
Of course learning on Porsche isn't the best idea unless you have wads of cash to burn.. (I don't), however I don’t feel like I should know how to rebuild the engine before (or worse while) I am learning to drive... I don’t mind checking the oil... and the tires, but that it... I do best learning one thing at a time. This brings me to another question… In the world of hand planes does one have to be a mechanic as well as a driver? <!----><!---->
I am not adverse to DIY stuff.. however after just completing a master suite remodel (.. btw do NOT attempt this when you have 2 children under the age of 4. Unhappy rumblings from your spouse WILL occur until the project is complete...Gotta love Fine Homebuilding ) the last thing in need right now is another "rite of passage". Not saying never... just not right now...right now I just want to learn how to properly use some planes for a "fun" project and make curly shavings.. <!----><!---->
Looks like ...<!----><!---->
LN = Porsche , <!----><!---->
New Stanley = Yugo .<!----><!---->
Old Stanley = Used Car... Could need anything from a tune up to a trip to the crusher..<!----><!---->
??? = New Ford / Honda ... Reliable with no surprises<!----><!---->
Too bad the used tools don’t come "certified pre-owned"<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
Thanks again for the advice.
Rob
Too bad the used tools don’t come "certified pre-owned"
That just might be the paradox. However, with a little elbow grease you can make it certified by you! The process of restoring an old plane will teach you far more than you will learn by purchasing a new one, IMHO. Adam provides some sage words of wisdom, listen very closely. His and others imspiration allowed me to make this certified by me plane!
Here's a B4 and after for you to consider. I had a blast restoring this plane. A friend gave it to me as he had no use for it?????????
Regards,<!----><!---->Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Just saw the before and after pics.... Looks like a really nice job..
Rob,
I think it is misleading to cast LN as Porsche. LN may seem expensive, but is not a luxury item, its cost reflects the recent scarcity of metals and the relatively high cost of maintaining employees in a sustainable business in the US. I think it's misleading to associate types of planes with brands of cars at all. Perhaps it is comparable to getting a new car as opposed to a used one, or even an antique one.
A few hours spent with a LN bench plane will give you some pretty clear goals to strive for with old planes. If you don't have the chance to borrow one, then consider it the cost of a lesson. I started with some old Stanleys and a LN #4 that taught me to set up the Stanleys; reading about sharpening gave me the lessons I needed about setting them up for differentiated uses.
-Andy
"In the world of hand planes does one have to be a mechanic as well as a driver? "That's a great question. Man you really thought about my post. Thanks.You don't have to be. Mario Andretti certainly was. I think there's a huge advantage in being an expert mechanic. If you aren't, I think driving will be a little harder. You'll have to rely on other drivers for your set-ups. I view it almost like a give a man a fish. That said, life is short and its no sin to pass on this skill to learn some others.Adam
"That's a great question. Man you really thought about my post. Thanks"
Of course... If you guys have taken the time to write it, it is my responsibilty to consider what is writen...... Knowlege is a valuable gift.....
I think i might follow the path taken by VTAndy.... get one "Reference" (perhaps a LV / LN ) plane, learn to use and maintain it (read and take a class), then make my next purchase a fixer-upper..
If this sounds like a good idea which one should be the reference one?
Standard #5 (bevel down?) or
Low angle #5 (bevel up?) or
Block plane?
-Rob
I think that's a great idea. One problem I always have is wondering if its me or the plane. Andy's approach short circuits that.I would choose as your reference plane one that will meet future needs and is unavailable as an antique. In my view that would be a high angle smoother of the sort made by LN. I don't like the idea of the low angle jacks. They seem designed to do jobs I don't do with jack planes. If you want to take advantage of a low angle plane technology, I think one would be better off packaging that technology in a smoother body. But that's just my opinion, and I don't think many share it.I use jack planes as tools for rough stock removal. Good luck and I hope you have fun with this. I certainly did.Adam
RobD,The smoother (#4) turned out to be a good choice for me (I made the choice randomly, however) because it turns out that it has the most demanding standards to meet. It's also cheaper than getting a larger LN bench plane. The 4 1/2 would probably also be a great choice, if I could re-do I'd go with the 4 or 4 1/2 with the high-angle frog.Then get an old Stanley #5 and work on it. This should be a roughing plane anyhow, so this is where you'll learn to camber a blade, and if you screw it up (not likely anyhow), it's not such a big deal.Finally, get an old Stanley #7 and visualize the blade's camber somewhere between the smoother and the jack.With those three planes, I was able to learn to prepare rough stock (and as I add more camber to the #5 with greater confidence, stock prep is getting faster for me).I do have a LN low-angle jack, and while I think it is a great tool for certain jobs, and I use it a LOT, I don't recommend it for learning about other planes, since it is so unique.
-Andy
Rob, I will second Bob @ Kidderville.
I have been reading Adam's posts' for a while. I have generally formed the conclusion that if Adam say's it stinks, I am not going to get down and smell to see if he's right:<)
Rob,
Looking at your list of tools, you have a planer (aka, thicknesser), but I don't see a way to flatten stock -- unless you're resorting to a sled setup using your planer. I assume that you listed your inventory because you wanted to be sure that your plane selection fits with your other tools. Anyway, you might consider a scrub plane and a #6 or #7 if it's your intent to flatten your stock by hand. If not, a jointer might be a better move.
In general I'm partial to the Veritas products. They're well made and a little bit less expensive than the Lie-Nielsen products. If you go with the low-angle block plane make sure to get another iron that you can keep at a higher angle to approximate a standard angle block plane. The low angle block is great for end grain, but tear-out can be a problem otherwise.
Since it seems that you're setup to machine your wood surfaces the value of a #4 might be limited. Let me throw out another thought or two. You might consider a shoulder plane like the Veritas medium. Is that tenon a little to tight for that mortise? (Better too tight than too loose!) A couple of swipes with the shoulder plane and you're good to go. Actually, there was recently a whole article in FWW on some of the many uses of the shoulder plane.
I'd also throw out the thought that a card scraper (I use the Sandvik/Bahco) and cabinet scraper (again, I like the Veritas) are relatively inexpensive and pretty useful too. I have a ROS, but I reach for the scrapers most of the time when I'm preparing a surface for finish. They also beat the daylights out of sanders for cleaning up glue line squeeze-out.
"Looking at your list of tools, you have a planer (aka, thicknesser), but I don't see a way to flatten stock -- unless you're resorting to a sled setup using your planer"
The thought of a jointer (Machine) also crossed my mind. It is just I am trying to cut down on the noise and dust factors… In any event I know my next move should be coming up with a real way method to flatten stock.. (I can here everyone reading this post saying “Duh! Of course you block head!”Gotta love the basics….). If given the choice between the two (I can only see myself knocking out maybe 2 or 3 projects per year for some time) am I better about which the man or machine option?
“I assume that you listed your inventory because you wanted to be sure that your plane selection fits with your other tools.”
…Exactly. I tried to give as much information as I could to give as complete of a picture as possible.
“I'd also throw out the thought that a card scraper (I use the Sandvik/Bahco) and cabinet scraper”
Another great idea… I could do with a little less sanding.
Thank you for such a good post.
Rob
Rob,From a noise standpoint, you may be pleasantly surprised by how little noise a well-made power jointer makes in the shop. My old Delta 4" (yes, I wish I had an 8") is quite significantly quieter in use than my table saw, planer, dust collector, or even shop vac, for that matter. And, (to my surprise) it's not a big dust maker. When it's blades are properly sharp, it primarily produces shavings rather than sawdust. Lots of them, of course, but they fall into a box set by it's shavings chute, rather than fill the air or scatter all over the shop floor.Mike
Glad to help.
In general tools with induction motors, such as jointers, are relatively quiet compared to those with universal motors, such as portable planers. Plus, you'll spend less time at the jointer than you will at the planer -- all you do at the jointer is get the stock flat on one face. Well, that and joint edges.
Flattening: Man vs. machine? There are a huge number of factors in that decision. I'll hit what are, IMHO, the major factors. Others are sure to disagree on some points and I won't say that they're necessarily wrong. With planes you can flatten pretty much anything, even that 54 inch wide single slab that you're using for a conference room tabletop. With a jointer you'll be limited to the width of the jointer. I suppose that the good news is that most people can have their needs largely addressed by an 8 inch jointer. From the cost perspective, if you place a reasonable value on your time it's pretty much a wash: a scrub plane, jointer plane, (time to make) winding sticks, and a reasonably stable bench to hold your stock versus a jointer are probably within the same order of magnitude of cost. From a productivity perspecitve, the power jointer will beat the hand tool route both in terms of throughput and learning curve.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled