Replies

1. 
   mvflaim | Sep 08, 2008 04:14am | #1

   Rehabbing an old tool to put it to use.... Awesome!

    

2. 
   EdHarrison | Sep 08, 2008 07:09am | #2

   I had to rub my eyes and slap myself awake. Someone's talking about actually USING handtools to make something? Not just which one's the best or where to buy or who sells what or how to sell tools on ebay or "lifecycle costs" or "tool investments" or who knows the most or LV vs. LN vs. who cares or Japanese shop procedures or sharpening preferences or stream of consciousness threads or "interlocked grain" crapola?

   Let me get this straight,...we're talking about actually USING hand tools now? Wow! Is there a full moon out?

   I like that foyer. I'm going to use my big wooden plough to make a couple six-panel doors. Really. No kidding. Doubled, back-to-back panels for temperature/wood movement stabilization. It's on my list of things to do. Soon as I get home and get done with all the other stuff,...
   Ed

1. 
   WillGeorge | Sep 09, 2008 03:14am | #11

   Mostly use my so called Junk TS then my router tables. Power tools here first BUT I have no objection to using hand tools. Many times no other way!

3. 
   philip | Sep 08, 2008 11:45am | #3

   Nice satisfying job. Nice when you can go the full circle too- get the tool or old machine, have the gumption to fix/rebuild/ overhaul/rehab the item and then use it on a project which could be a private job or a client job.
   Sadly, many folk are not able to do that but can at least discuss or talk about their tools and machines. Sadly, others just criticise those that like to talk . Funny old world ,really.
   If that is your house it would be nice to see more details of the wood panels , doors , stairs etc. I was looking for a grandfather clock....

   Philip Marcou
4. 
   Oilstone | Sep 08, 2008 03:28pm | #4

   That's a sweet, subtle profile.   Looking really closely it looks hand carved to me. The quirks definitely do and the cove portion looks irregular enough to have been worked by a gouge as well.

   Are my eyes playing tricks on me?  Anybody else notice this?

   
   

   ---

   Edited 9/8/2008 9:03 am ET by Oilstone

1. 
   slashdev | Sep 08, 2008 06:07pm | #6

   > That's a sweet, subtle profile.

   Thanks!  Of course, I can only take credit for combining the Cove & QGO with the Torus Bead.  The C&QGO is original to the house, only upside down as a window apron mould.  The skirting is only beveled on the top.  As I was researching what mouldings to use in the foyer, I suddenly recognized the upside-down base mould that was applied to the aprons.

   > Looking really closely it looks hand carved to me.

   Yes! <fist pump>  I am going for the "hand made" look, so this is exactly the reaction I'm after.

   Here's a foreshortened shot of the whole shebang:

   View Image 

   View Image

   The second photo shows how the top cove of the Torus Bead is applied... the stuff wasn't thick enough.  It's glued on a little crooked at the far end.

   > Are my eyes playing tricks on me?

   Definitely not -- the ends of the mould are certainly a little rougher than the middle.  Depending on the condition of the wooden moulding plane, it would snipe or turn left or right.  One was so bad that I had use clamps to straighten the body.  :D

   View Image

   <snort>  I see dkellerc just posted

   > the traditional tool for doing this sort of thing> is a moving fillister... because a fillister is> designed to cut right up to the fence ...

   Now you tell me! :D  That was a real forehead-slapper moment.  The mould is so small that I couldn't use the plough for all the rabbets, so I just used a moving fillister with a skew blade.  Sigh.

   My OP was really tongue-in-cheek, though.  Faced with the most complex job I've ever tackled, I

   stop to rehab an antique plane

   to make a small amount of moulding,

   which will probably never be noticed because it's only slightly higher than your ankles.

   So I can "finish the job."  Pfffft.  Seems like I have to sneak those in every once in a while to take my mind off the overwhelming amount of work yet to be done.

   > Nice foyer.  Reminds me of the 18th century rooms

   Thanks! <fist pump> number two.  I think it's interesting how several small things give a room that "old" feel: hand tooling, custom mouldings, classical proportions, non-standard stock sizes and traditional finishes (BLO and shellac).

   Oh, I almost forgot to mention the best Japanese eBay lifecycle investment for sharpening your interlocked consciousness crapola.  ;)---------------

   /dev

1. 
   Oilstone | Sep 08, 2008 06:21pm | #7

   I love it.  Good luck with the project.

   Edited 9/8/2008 11:22 am ET by Oilstone

2. 
   Bill_Anderson | Sep 08, 2008 09:13pm | #8

   I don't think that you have  torus bead there unless my concept of such a profile is mistaken.  Looks like it is a cove+scotia (aka bolection) at the thin end after the glue-up, a fillet, then a quirked ogee, and finally a small cove at the top.  A bead is a half round element separated either by a quirk (sharp deep groove) or a fillet of some sort from the other profile element.  Just FYI.

1. 
   slashdev | Sep 08, 2008 10:23pm | #9

   LOL. I kinda figured there'd be disagreement on the terminology. I thought I'd seen this particular combo called a torus bead, but you're right -- it's not a torus bead.

   IMHO, the closest thing to a taxonomy and systematic naming of moulding profiles is, John Whelan's The Wooden Plane.  In that book,

   a plain-ol' "bead" or "side bead" is a convex semicircle set at the edge and flush to the surface, with a quirk on the inside;

   a "torus bead" is a bead with a quirk on the inside and a fillet on the outside (usually lower than the quirk);

   an "astragal" has fillets on both sides;

   a "center bead" has quirks on both sides (usually not set at the edge);

   a "scotia" is "a hollow arc with its two ends at different levels, both above the lowest point of the arc" and is usually more than a quarter arc;

   an "ovolo" is convex circular or elliptical quarter-arc or less; and

   a "cove" is a concave circular quarter arc or less.

   At least according to Whelan, the fruit of my labor would be a Cove and Ovolo (CV) on top of a Cove and Quirk Ogee (CQO), or a CV+CQO.

   Gracious!  I think Ed will enjoy this part the most.  ;)  I've got a larger CV to make now, so back to using tools, eh?---------------

   /dev

1. 
   Bill_Anderson | Sep 08, 2008 10:31pm | #10

   I am a biologist and I just love the fact that there is a taxonomy for molding profiles. Talk about combining loves!

2. 
   slashdev | Sep 10, 2008 02:11am | #13

   > I've got a larger CV to make now, so back to using tools, eh?

   Undaunted by collectability, I fettled a few more wooden planes:View ImageAgain, it's because I need to shrink the machine-cut CV (bottom right, underneath). This time, I cut V-grooves in the face of the stuff, then used a Hollow and a Deep Round to finish the profile (sitting on the original, above).I started with several passes of a marking gauge, then followed the line with a shoulder plane, canted 45 degrees to the side:View ImageAfter few passes, I switched to the chamfer plane:View ImageOf course, it's easy sharpen, and it cuts the cutest little shaving:View ImageToo much fun!---------------

   /dev

3. 
   dkellernc | Sep 10, 2008 03:23am | #14

   There's little danger that you will make a severe financial mistake if you're re-habbing 19th century wooden planes, particularly those by Greenfield, Ohio Tools, Sandusky or Auburn Tools.  That said, it would be worth your while to pick up a copy of "The Field Guide to Makers of American Planes".  "Rehabbing" a plane marked "Francis Nicholson" on the front would be a multi-thousand dollar mistake.  Even more so one marked "Ceasor Chelor" - a plow by this individual sold very recently on e-bay for $8500.

   By the way, the plane you've photographed in the last two frames isn't normally called a "chamfer plane" - it's a v-groove plane.  Chamfer planes look quite different than a normal molding plane, and as the name implies, cuts an adjustable chamfer on the edge of a plank.  (Not, of course, that the terminology is all that important unless you're writing a magazine article).

4. 
   slashdev | Sep 10, 2008 05:37am | #15

   > $?

   Thanks for the heads up.  I tried to do a fair amount of research while acquiring the planes, including the various price guides.  The oldest one above is a Cogdell Hollow, one of the oldest planemakers that marked his product.  But it's got a lot of rot, stain and wormholes, as you can see from the fettled bottom.  The blade is severly pitted, the tang is almost rusted apart, and the body was PU'd along the way.  Sigh.  But I'm getting a kick out of actually using a plane that's nearly 300 years old.  :)

   > v-groove, not chamfer plane

   That was my first thought, too.  I had it catalogued as a Chamfer plane, so I went looking in Whelan... before I hit the Post button.  He mentions it in the chapter on Decorative Molding Planes, but provides no picture:

   Planes to cut V-grooves for functional purposes were covered previously in the chapter "Grooving Planes"; however, they were also used decoratively.

   He then mentions a Car Beading plane with a metal sole (same profile as mine), and a fenced Hawk plane used in shipyards for paint striping (!?!).  I can find no mention in the chapter "Grooving Planes."

   But... in the chapter "Planes Forming Angled Surfaces", many forms of the chamfer plane are discussed, such as fenced, wedge arm, hinged, and on page 151:

   Fixed Chamfer planes are less common in England and almost unknown in the U.S.  These are usually side escapement planes, and differ from molding planes only in having their soles not curved, but of straight line sements.  A selection of these is seen in Fig. 8:16.  A Double Chamfer plane (Fig. 8:16A) is a rabbet with a V protusion from its sole, and fitted with a V-pointed blade which will cut a chamfer on either right or left hand.  It is also used to cut a V groove: it was listed by Mathieson (Scotland) as a "Champhering or V plane".

   The figure referenced shows my plane, including the shape of the boxing and the side escapement.  And, my plane is a Mathieson plane.

   Sheesh!  Is this a magazine article yet?  :)

   With kind regards for your always-informative posts,    I remain,        /dev

5. 
   dkellernc | Sep 10, 2008 05:54pm | #16

   OK - You're going to make me go get Whelan's book off of the shelf. ;-)

   I'd always been told (and read) that a chamfer plane, regardless of its configuration, cuts a chamfer on the edge of a board, and a v-groove plane (usually, but not always, unfenced) cuts a v-groove down the center of a board with the grain.  Perhaps my information is dated - there's a lot of research going on into the 18th century language to describe molding planes, and their uses.  An example is a comment by Don McConnel in his Molding Planes:  The Basics video that a quirk plane was used to sink a curved quirk into the center of a board with the grain, not for cleaning up molding profiles already made with a crown molder as I've read in other sources.

   You might be surprised about how much a T. Codgell plane is worth, even if it's just a hollow.  That said, if the condition is very poor, it might fetch no more than $125, though that's considerably more than any hollow from a mid-19th century American maker would go for - at most $15, and only then if it's going to someone that really wants it to fill a hole in their H&R sets.  Some of the UK makers that I'd be cautious about fettling are I. Sym, I. Cox, Maddox, Mutter, and of course, an R. Wooding, though it's unlikely you'd find a Wooding in the bargain box at the fairgrounds.  That said, I do use planes made by Cox, Sym, Maddox and Mutter, though I don't fettle them. 

   I would never use a plane made by an 18th century American maker - they're just too rare, and one can sell them for lots of money to collectors, and exchange one plane for whole sets of planes by the later 19th century makers.

6. 
   mwenz | Sep 12, 2008 01:18am | #17

   Some of the UK makers that I'd be cautious about fettling are I. Sym, I. Cox, Maddox...

   That would be spelled with a single 'd'

   View Image

   View Image

   Lovely plane. Delicate profile. Wonderful user..."though I don't fettle them." Well, 'cepting to sharpen the iron...

   Take care, Mike

7. 
   WillGeorge | Sep 12, 2008 02:38am | #18

   Fettle is that a Noun or Verb as you used the word?

   http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fettle

8. 
   mwenz | Sep 12, 2008 03:16am | #19

   It would be a verb as long as it was the activity of the process we are talking about--not that it matters. I simply quoted another who used the word.

   But once done, one could use it as a noun as in the common phrase: The plane is now in fine fettle.

   But...again, does it matter?

   Mike

9. 
   WillGeorge | Sep 12, 2008 03:21am | #20

   Mike .. Gee I did not mean to upset you.. I just like words I never use often!

   No offence intended!

10. 
    mwenz | Sep 12, 2008 03:27am | #21

    No worries. I apologize. Been a hard several weeks and I do believe I'm a wee bit on edge. I think I need more sleep. Well, fishing wouldn't be a bad idea. Golf would suffice. Getting out of Dodge for a while? Priceless.

    Take care, Mike

11. 
    dkellernc | Sep 12, 2008 05:12pm | #22

    "Madox" not "Maddox" Indeed - I was too lazy to go down to the shop and check the spelling of the name.

    And you're right on the "fettling" - I personally never consider sharpening an iron (unless it's done very, very badly) a detraction in an antique tool, and I don't personally know any other tool collectors that would, as well, even those that abhor even the slightest bit of cleaning.  "Fettling" is a fairly new term for me, picked up after watching Charlesworth's videos and reading his books.  Seems a pretty useful term, as to my knowledge us Americans don't have a word that combines sharpening and bedding the iron, truing the sole etc...

    Edited 9/12/2008 10:13 am ET by dkellernc

12. 
    RalphBarker | Sep 13, 2008 06:06pm | #23

    If one desires to fettle properly, does it help to have a personal fetness trainer? And, is there a preferred style of sneaker to wear while doing so? ;-)

3. 
   WillGeorge | Sep 09, 2008 03:16am | #12

   which will probably never be noticed because it's only slightly higher than your ankles.

   YES.. BUT.. YOU knew it was there!

5. 
   dkellernc | Sep 08, 2008 04:29pm | #5

   Nice foyer - Reminds me of the 18th century rooms installed in MESDA (The Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts) where all of the high-style rooms from the period were all wood paneling - sometimes painted, sometimes not.  It seems that the "plaster look" was not in favor during the period unless that's all you could afford.

   A comment about the tool - you may very well be able to use the plow to rough out a rabbet to follow with the H&R with the plow, assuming you were able to get a set of irons with it (or it came with one of the wider irons in the set of 8 typically sold with them).  However, the traditional tool for doing this sort of thing is a moving fillister (or filletster, I've seen it spelled both ways).

   The reason is that a fillister is designed to cut right up to the fence and has a wide blade, which allows you to cut a rabbet of almost 1-1/2".  It's also a bit easier to set the fence parallel to the cut and also a bit easier to use the plane because it's got a wide running surface on the sole, in contrast to a plow which has a very narrow sole.

   I prefer a wooden version of a moving fillister, but the new Lee-Valley metal versions look like they'd do a superb job as well.