Was I wrong in my thinking that a smoother plane could provide the final finished surface on the faces of my hardwoods? I’m having alot of trouble getting a perfect surface with them. Maybe standard practice is to follow up with sandpaper or scrapers? Please give me any knowledge you have on this.
Also, I’m looking for an old stanley jack plane and rabbet plane. Can someone tell me how to identify the good old stanleys on Ebay. What model numbers should I be looking for for those planes, what years should I be looking at and how can I tell when they we’re made.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
Replies
Sammer,
It might be helpful if you would tell us how you tuned your smoother and how you're using it. Also, what were your expectations, and how were they not met?
However, I can say that a properly tuned and used smoother--most of the time--will leave a surface that is far superior to the surface left by sand paper, or even to that left by scraping. The wood is glassy smooth, but an added bonus is that there are fewer problems with even staining and finishing (probably because the wood is not clogged with dust or compressed by rotary tools).
But not all woods will willingly submit to the plane. With a very sharp iron, a tight mouth and taking extremely fine shavings most problems can be overcome--most but not all. Sometimes you'll have to resort to scraping or sanding.
That said, though a smoother will leave the wood glassy smooth it will not leave it glassy flat. But you do have a choice of what kind of non-flat surface it leaves. Smoother irons can be honed at least three different ways, each of which leaves a different sort of surface:
If the iron is honed straight across with square corners the tool will cut a square bottomed "trench" (albeit a very shallow one) with straight vertical edges. Running your hand over the planed surface you'll feel a series of ridges parallel to the path of the plane.
If the iron is honed with a straight edge but with rounded corners it will cut the same trench, but the sides will more gently curve up. The surface will still have a series of ridges, but they will be smaller and the transition to them not as abrupt.
If the iron is honed into a small convex arc, and in use is extended so that it is not below the sole at the edges, the plane will cut a curved bottom trench without ridges at the edges. The shaving will be deepest in the middle, and thins out to nothing at the edges where the iron doesn't cut. This leaves the gently undulating surface that is the hallmark--and these days an often highly prized hallmark--of "hand planed" surfaces.
With the first two set ups the ridges can be eliminated with either sand paper or scrapers. But the use of those tools, the sand paper most especially, can largely ruin the advantages of planing. Careful scraping with properly sharpened tools can often retain the planed look.
Because I use my bench-plane smoothers only for smoothing (what a concept!) there's no reason I cannot hone the irons into an arc. (I have a low angle smoother that I use exclusively as a miter plane.) But if you need your smoother to do double duty this might not work. As a compromise you can hone the iron straight across but round the corners; but like most compromises this might not be the best for both jobs. The best solution would probably be to get a second iron.
Wow. Long. Though I left out about as much or more than I included. It's amazing how long I can spin out my limited knowledge.
Alan
Alan,
That was a really excellent description ...wish you hadn't stopped. Where I get confused is in the definition of a smoother. I think Stanley #3 or #4 for smoother and, I figure, the shorter base makes it easier than a #5, etc. to focus on the hills in the wood (that may be all wrong, please correct). But when you say 'low angle' smoother is that a block plane that has the iron modified?...
Sammer, Patrick's Blood and Gore on the web has some good stuff on determining the age of the Stanley and the features. Personnally, I use a dealer most of the time. He knows I'm looking for planes to use not put on mantle, higher price but no mistakes.
BG,
"Smoothing planes," as you said, are the Stanley numbers 3 and 4. These days there are all sorts of variations on the theme, and all sorts of new numbers to go with them--lots of fractions are nowadays appended to the 3s and 4s.
I'm not too sure what you're asking, but to take a stab at what I think your question is... A smoothing plane is generally used as the final (we hope) step preparing the surface for finishing. The idea is to get rid of the marks and imperfections left by the the tools previously used, and produce that deep, seemingly transparent surface.
You say that the small size allows you to concentrate on the high spots. That's not the way I use my smoothers (though I don't think I'm an authority on plane use). I don't use them as "flatteners," which is a job I think is better done by other planes.
Depending on the amount of work needed I will use a jack plane and a fore or try plane to dimension and flatten the surface before I use a smoother. On stock that is already flat and dimensioned the way I want it, I will most often use only a smoothing plane--to remove the tool marks left by the power planers.
I tuned and use my jack like a scrub plane. I honed a rather severe arc into the iron, and set the mouth wide open. If I have to remove a lot of wood I set the iron about as rank as I can to cut as much as quickly as possible. Once the stock is flat and properly dimensioned I will re-set the iron for a lighter cut, and get the surface as smooth as the jack plane will allow.
Depending on the size of the stock, the type of wood, the final surface I'm looking for and how smooth I was able to get the stock with my jack plane, I will then use my #3--the iron on which I ground into a larger arc than on my #4--or my #4, that has a shallower arc on the iron, or my fore or try plane (neither has an arc ground into the iron). The last step is almost always my #4.
As to my low angle smoother, I suppose you could describe it as a big block plane. The iron is bedded at 12 degrees (if I remember correctly) is installed bevel up, and the plane has an adjustable mouth. I might be describing a low angle block plane--except my low angle smoother is ten or so inches long with a two inch wide iron. As I think I mentioned in my first post, I got it to use as a miter plane on a shooting board. As such it sees only end grain; IMHO the low angle makes good sense for this application. (I am a heretic even amongst hand tool users: I'm not otherwise a "believer" in low angle planes.)
I have both of Charlesworth's books, and I enjoy both of them. The quality of his work speaks for itself--but he does do a few things tuning planes that make me cringe: one is grinding an arc into all of his irons (another is creating a tiny back bevel on his irons just to avoid a bit of time on the stones). IMHO using an arced iron in the way he describes sounds much more difficult than using the more traditional methods or simply obtaining a second iron.
Wow. I did it again. Too long. Sigh.
Alan
Alan,
Have a close look at the Charlesworth volume 1. He doesn't grind an arc on the irons. A very small arc is produced by applying point pressure to different locations on the iron and counting strokes (more on the outside than in the middle) to produce a very small curvature on the iron. This allows the shavings to taper away to nothing near the outside edges. Not much perceptible, except when fixing the chip breaker in place and using its straight edge as a reference. In practice, this method, even doing edge jointing, has been amazingly effective and has turned planing around for me. (Not that it makes me cringe, but I don't use "the ruler trick" on the iron's back side either. Its intent is to avoid the flat back sticking to the finest grit waterstones, an annoyance. I use a slightly different method at those grits.)
By the way, the slightly rounded iron isn't an invention of Charlesworth's. As I recall, Sgian once mentioned learning of this method (including in edge jointing?) during his training in a post a while ago. Also, doesn't the recent online video regarding the use of diamond paste include the use of point pressure to ease the outside edges? Similar thing.
Just a minor clarification, not intended to get off the point, which is easy to do with something as broad as achieving good results planing. I guess my point is that it isn't as easy as obtaining a smoothing plane and taking it to the timber. There's more to it, but that "more" can make the plane work beautifully.
Cheers,
Greg
Alan,
It appears I need to invest in the Charlesworth books to understand some of the basics better...unless I can get you and Greg into an arguement ....lol...I think Greg did imply your cuts don't curl..nasty stuff...lol.
Both you and Greg paint a clear picture of the different outcomes that can be achieved through modifing the shape of the blade. What I get confused about is llength of the plane base relative to its purpose. I read somewhere that your jointer can join a board up to 3 times the length of the jointer base i.e. a 24" jointer can do a board that is about 6' long. So if I apply that logic to the #3, #4, #5 and all the fractions in between....hence my comments in the previous post..which is obivoiusly not correct. But to the point, why would I not take my jack plane (#5) and put a modified blade in it and achieve the same outcome as a smoother?...how does the base length effect the outcome..if it does.
Lastly, yes, the LN would be great to have, but its not clear to me that a jackass with a LN is better than a jackass with an Old Stanley. I want to understand better the relationships of the plane parts to each other, the relationship of the planes to each other, the relationship of the wood to the plane and, most important, the relationship to my wife if I spend $450 dollars on a LN jointer....lol
As someone who is stuggling with these issues on the "same plane" (boy, that's bad), I've been following this thread with interest. One question I have that the books don''t seem to address - I use a honing guide for my sharpening on Japanese waterstones - how can I get the arc in the blade with a guide? Should I do the edges freehand after establishing the initial edge?
Ben,
The picture I have seen of an arched blade was quite aggressive....presumably to remove lots of stock with each pass. My guess is that would have to be initiated on a relatively corse wheel and then from there free hand...but I don't know. For the convex cut, I think you can achieve that by pressing on the outside edges of the blade as you go through the various grits...
I want to buy some additional blades and play around with the different options. But first I need to know I can do it the right way. One thing that is helping is I started planing a nice flat piece of mahogany....about 16/4 x 2'. Usually were trying to learn on a crappy piece of white oak with all kinds of twists, caves, knots, etc. Between the sound and the curls you just know your doing it right on the mahogany....we'll both keep listening..
Thanks, I'll try that - have been testing on scrap cherry (no knots) so I can't blame the wood for my own flaws!
BG,
Pretty hard for me to argue with Alan. Looks as if we see eye to eye, and no further implications or nasty lacks of curl. Looking at what I wrote, though, reveals some omissions.
The techniques advocated by Charlesworth begin with tuning up the plane. Truing the sole, filing a bit on the frog and its seat to improve solid iron support, etc.... Then comes the iron sharpening. Although he has been doing it for years, he still uses a honing guide and teaches his students to do the same. The reason is control and repeatability. The kind of honing guide is very important, too. I had used the Veritas guide before, and still use it for chisels, but the "eclipse-style" is the one for plane irons. (Nice that it is very inexpensive; approx 10-14 bucks, depending on the source.) He uses water stones and I use water stones and finish up on mylar-backed micro abrasives on glass, but you can do scary sharp or anything you like. The slight crown is made by placing the fingers on "points", or locations along the edge of the blade. Simple, really. Something like 8 strokes with pressure on the outside points, 6 in the intermediate points and 4 with pressure evenly distributed (kind of like in the middle) and a sort of crown is achieved. Easy to control and easy to repeat. Quick, too. The illustrations are far better than my quick description. On my first time, I almost had to laugh. First time planing, I mean.
I don't think you need to plane by the numbers. You can get a lot out of a jack (my preference would be a 5 1/2) , a block and a shoulder plane. The thing that helps the most is to understand the relationship between the blade and the mouth opening. Most books, including Hack's have good illustrations of this. As the fibers are lifted up by the blade, the mouth edge essentially breaks their backs. A wide mouth will allow a lot of fibers to come up before the "back breaking", and a narrow opening accomplishes this much sooner. Think of it this way: using either a chisel or a chisel plane, which doesn't have a mouth, will result in a big sliver being lifted up off the face of the timber you're trying to get true or smooth. Even more, think of things on a microscopic level. After the blade edge initially enters the wood, the edge ceases to be in contact; the wood sliver (properly "chip") is now riding up higher on the bevel of the chisel or iron. The wood is lifting and splitting away and will continue to do so unless broken by something putting downward pressure on it ahead of the sharp blade. This is the sole ahead of the mouth in a smoothing plane, for example.
Back to numbers, I don't know how much different the mouth openings are on a jack vs. a #4 Stanley. I know the L-N's can be adjusted down to zero, past the point of choking. The mouth opening-depth of iron relationship is what makes the difference between aggressive timber removal and a fine smoothing cut. I don't think the length of the plane, designated by now standardized numbers, is the ball on which to keep one's eye.
As to affordability and healthy relationships (the truly important matters), the new Veritas planes sure look attractive to me. They have adjustable mouths and appreciably thicker irons. As to this later feature, I would bet Charlesworth would say that a thicker iron is a huge advantage due to its reduction in chatter. Here is something else to play with: Veritas now has a low angle smoother. Its length is about the same as a #4, but its bed angle is around 12 degrees, bedding the iron bevel side up. Just like a block plane. Compare this with Karl Holtey's new smoother (imo, Karl makes the finest planes ever produced, period). The theory is very much the same. And, with the bevel angle up, one can change the pitch by changing the bevel angle. You can go from the typical smoother's angle to a York pitch, for more difficult grain, by a steeper bevel angle. According to Karl, the chip breaker never did much anyway, so losing it by flipping the iron over isn't much of a loss. Much outweighed by gains from the flat side being supported all the way down to the mouth opening, something not possible with the bevel side down. And, they can be used with miter jacks and on end grain. Pretty versatile.
Now for the real secret. Don't tell anyone, but there is an advantage in keeping a coffee can. Five bucks here, ten there. After a while, a portion of the $350 for a nice L-N 5 1/2 has been eroded. As I said, though, it's the real secret.
Cheers,
Greg
Greg,
I was interested in your comment about the Veritas guide vs the Eclipse. I agree about using the Eclipse for plane irons. But, I can't get the Veritas to hold a chisel well due to the sloping angle of the chisel's front surface. Although the clamping end of the thumbscrew is on a swivel, it will not firmly hold chisels. How do you get it to hold?
Therefore, I use the Eclipse for both chisels and plane irons, and consider the Veritas a lesson in wasted money (fortunately not too much). The Veritas angle guide works for both, but I use a wood block with a dowel to set the angle on the Eclipse.
Rich
Rich,
I do still use the Veritas on chisels, but maybe out of stubborness or something like it. It isn't easy to get it on tightly and not twist the chisel out of square in the process. Great vigilance is also needed during the strokes, too. Its advantage is the wider wheel, which is precisely why it isn't so great when attempting to put a bit of a crown on plane irons. The wider wheel resists the point pressure applied to the outer portions of the iron. As Charlesworth puts it in English-English, the wider wheel "dictates" too much. I think this is theoretically an advantage when sharpening chisels, as they should be straight and not crowned. Also, if you like micro-bevels, the Veritas guide sets up very simply for that.
I agree with the utility of the Veritas angle setting jig, but further agree that a simple home-made device such as a piece of plywood or mdf with a dowel or something to butt up against is just as effective for setting the same angle. Just let the iron extend from the edge of the guide, right to the dowel, and you've set the exact same honing angle each time. Again, I think the video demonstration on the FWW home page shows this method of angle setting.
If you really want to have a guide that "dictates" too much (or just right, if you want an absolutely straight, no crowned edge) have a look at the new guide offered by Garrett-Wade. They call it a British-made chisel honing guide. It has two wheels, each outboard of the chisel, which is clamped in the center, much like the Eclipse style guide which you and I use. Too expensive for me, though, and I get what I want from the ones I have.
Aloha,
Greg
p.s. Have I gotten sufficiently away from the initial post?
Thanks Greg. That about covers it. I bought the Veritas, having had the Eclipse for years, wanting to like it, but it doesn't work well in my hands. The faithful little Eclipse just keeps rolling along.
Another problem with the Veritas - when I rotate the wheel adjustment to increase the angle a degree or two in order to hone the microbevel, the whole tool gets skewed minutely, resulting in a microbevel that's not square to the just-honed main bevel. Not a crippling defect, but annoying when trying for the precision that's supposed to be happening at the chisel's sharp edge.
Rich
GregB -
That coffee can trick might just be the best ww tip I've heard all year.
Ben,
As with all covert operations, success must be celebrated privately.... Or maybe with just a few friends.
Greg
Amen - needless to say, we wouldn't want to forward this tip onto Taunton Press' other fine publications or bulletin boards that our significant others might just happen to be more likely to read :)
What a great post! Thx.
Alan,
No need to be self conscious. That was a good post, both as to your descriptions and the initial questions. All of my irons have a slight crown, even the jack and trying plane. I follow the technique taught by David Charlesworth in his furniture making techniques books. Detailed instructions on sharpening and tuning/"fettling" in volume 1 and further details on edge jointing and shooting board making and use in volume 2. Both are available on Amazon, Lie-Nielsen's web site and from the author's own web page directly. No commercial, just a recommendation based on terrific results.
As to the questions you put, they really get to the heart of the issue. Tuning, expectations, even type of timber being planed.... A mouth too wide, iron not sharp enough and iron poorly supported, planing difficult timber will make you want to cry, at first, anyway. That was my own first experience, with a new Stanley #4. I now have a very nice, pre-war Stanley #5 which I use only for certain tasks and it performs well. Over the past few years, though, I've scratched and saved for several more Lie-Nielsen planes and feel the difference is dramatic. This is especially true of the frog adjustment, which allows the mouth to be set very narrowly, making a huge difference. Since I sometimes work with timbers such as Koa, the next expenditure will be for a York pitch frog for my 4 1/2.
I want to say that beginners will do far better just going for a L-N #5 or 5 1/2, than poking around on ebay for an old stanley. Unrealistic, I know, but the good results will hook you for life. And then there are the wooden planes our friend Larry Williams makes so well....
Anyway, my humble opinion includes a need to read a little. Knowledge gained about theory (e.g. Garrett Hack's book) and tuning and techniques (Charlesworth's books) will make very clear why the questions you asked initially make so much sense.
Cheers,
Greg
Edited 9/9/2002 6:53:28 PM ET by GregB
Great post, however I have to take exception with your assertion about scrapers. A properly burnished, properly used cabinet scraper takes the same cutting action as a plane blade and can be made to take the same micro-thin shavings as a smoother. Most problems arise from the fact that it's easy to screw up your angle of attack since you have to rely on your hands to maintain a steady working angle. With a little practice, though, it's no thing at all to attain that glass smooth surface with one, and I have a hard time imagining that it can be significantly improved upon.
Good info, though; I learned a couple things about radiusing blades that I had no idea about.
JALLEN,
My final surface is frequently a scraped one too. My silly goal is to avoid sandpaper entirely.... Would you believe I use a "guide" of sorts for this too, and go through the grits down to the finest micron grits on the mylar backed? Takes only seconds. I handed my father-in-law a handfull of the shavings and he was facinated. Kind of like curls of cotton candy, but with wood grain. When holding the piece up to deflect the light, it looks glass smooth, just as yours.
The guide is found in Graham Blackburn's woodworking handtools book. It is essentially a well squared piece of wood about 1 1/4 x 1 1/4 with a rabbet in one surface about as deep as the thickness of your file. The file rests in the rabbet, which is only about as wide as half the width of the file, leaving the other half of the file protruding. The scraper slides back and forth on the wood surface adjoining the file, with its edge being jointed by the file itself. After jointing, just go to abrasive sheets on glass, forgetting about the rabbet and using the opposite side of the guide to keep the scraper perpendicular to the abrasive sheets. Just slide the scraper back and forth with the side against the wood and the edge on the sheet. Obviously, you hone the wire edge away from the sides as you go, just as you do with the back side of a chisel or plane iron. The illustrations in the book are worth a thousand words. Burnish and all done.
I know you didn't ask for this description, but it may be of interest to someone trying to get a nice finished surface without sandpaper. I turn to the scrapers when it comes to difficult grain, as in tropicals, or with bookmatched panels, which have the grain running in opposite directions on each side of the book match. Same for glued up panels, where my carelessness put boards with opposite running grain together at a glue line.... The scrapers are easy to control and don't give me trepidations that even my best-tuned smoother sometimes can.
Lots of unsolicited info that I hope interests someone...
Cheers,
Greg
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled