You know what’d be nice to see as the next FWW test? Powered sharpening devices. There’s a lot of cool stuff on the market, from old-school grinders to Lap-Sharp and its knockoffs to Tormek and such. I’d like to know which ones are worth considering, whether it’s worth abandoning my cheapie 8″ grinder for a better system, and if so which one, as me and my elbows and my back are tired of Scary Sharp[1].
I’m posting this in Hand Tools although it’s really about power tools, but it’s sort of a second-order hand tools post, as the point of the power tools in question is to make pointy hand tools.
eric
[1] Yes, I know, back in the good old days you used a whetstone or a piece of flint and you *liked* it. My grandfather was a toolmaker and I recall he had some gigantic (like 2-foot-diameter) pedal-powered grindstone that he could put a razor edge on a carving knife with. I’m not that talented, I’m a lazy hobbyist who would rather work wood than metal. Let the flame wars begin!
Replies
They did one a few years back. Search the site and you'll find the pdf.
Not long ago FWW published the results of that test. They looked at the ease of sharpening for 3 types of tools IIRC: Plane Blades, Chisels and gouges. They looked at powered sharpeners mostly like the Tormek I think. Really IMHO its personal pref. Some people think of jigs and aids as training wheels till you can do it in the dark with someone ELSES hands, but for me personally, I think the time savings and repeatability of a jig are well worth the small cost of a set of "training wheels"
Unfortunately, the recent poll of "What Tool Should We Test Next" had a fatal flaw - there wasn't a choice of "None. Tool Tests do not belong in Fine Woodworking"
lol...great observation!
"Tool Tests do not belong in Fine Woodworking"
I couldn't agree more. The precious space in the magazine would be better devoted to the application of tools in the making of fine furniture.
Rob Millardhttp://www.americanfederalperiod.com
"I couldn't agree more. The precious space in the magazine would be better devoted to the application of tools in the making of fine furniture."
Unfortunately, the leadership of FWW is unconvinced. They seem rather determined to make FWW into one of the beginner clones on the newstand. One thing they should think about, though, is that they derive a fairly large income from re-cycling older material into CDs and website content. I can't imagine they believe that anyone will want to re-read a tool test from a year ago, much less 15 years ago.
Are you kidding? Can you imagine how anxious woodworkers and historians would be to read tool tests from 200 years ago - 150 years ago - etc.
"In this issue of Ye Olde Cabinet Maker we compare the Kenyon saws to ..."
So, FWW reviews might likewise have an avid audience in a couple centuries. ;-)
All,
In general, I agree, tool tests are pretty lame, especially they way they are done. BUT there is one tool test left to be done!
There is a point that needs to be cleared up, once and for all.
There have been a bunch of folks drooling over Holteys and Marcous lately. I have often said that the Goddards and Townsends (and lots of others) made great furniture long before Mr. Holtey and Mr. Marcou were born. When I have done that, I have been (not unexpectedly) been flamed by folks who you would expect to answer with flames. I would like to see FWW do a head to head test on a number of smoothers;
- a Holtey
- a Marcou
- a Lie Nielsen (or Lee Valley) #4
- a refurbished Stanley #4 with the original iron and chipbreaker, and with a new Hock (or equivalent) iron and chipbreaker.
- an old wooden coffin smoother
- an old Norris infill plane.I'd like to see all of them attack a dozen or so types of wood, from simple and soft, to hard and difficult grain that "normal" fine woodworkers often encounter. I suppose, for the fun of it, you could throw in a few pieces of lumber from Australia.I'd like to see a double-blind test, in which one excellent woodworker did all of the planing, but a set of five others evaluated each of the pieces of planed wood on a 1 to ten scale. I'd also like to hear the personal comments of the person who did the planing. I would hope it would be someone who has no axes to grind, so to speak. My mind is open on this one. I have never held a Norris, a Marcou or a Holtey. I have used coffins, old Stanleys which I fettled, and Lie Nielsens in the smoother family. I think I can get a fine surface with any of them. I like the LNs and the LVs because they come almost ready to use, rather than needing a lot of fettling and a new blade and chip breaker. I'd like to see a professional woodworker price out the cost of fettling and outfitting an old Stanley versus buying a new Lie Nielsen. If I had to guess what would come of such a test, I would guess that the judges would judge all of the surfaces to be excellent, with not much difference attributable to the planes. But why not let the chips fall where they may. I would be happy to hear other ideas on how one could objectively determine the circumstances, if any, in which spending thousands of dollars on a plane is worth it over the $400 or so for a LN or LV, or the few hundred for the fettled and updated old Stanley. There is not much out there in the way of data to help settle this "discussion". I believe a single good test by FWW could put it to rest forever. Any throughts.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. .
I second your idea. That would be a fun article to read.
PWW did a similar article (not really scientific) in its August 2006 issue: Test Driving Exotic Infill Handplanes (Chris Schwarz). He concluded that all the planes you mention did well. He notes that Robin Lee and Thomas Lie-Nielsen weren't surprised. Robin said "The wood doesn't care" and TLN siad "A plane is just a jig for a chisel."
Edited 7/8/2009 4:54 pm ET by Samson
Sean,
Thank you for pointing out that article. I will look it up. I am really glad to hear your point of view on this. You are one smart dude.Are you sure you cant make it to see David Savage on Saturday? Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Didn't they include in that test one of Krenovs little hand made beauties? I think the blade may have even been suported by tape. They said it worked great tho'
"I would like to see FWW do a head to head test on a number of smoothers;- a Holtey- a Marcou- a Lie Nielsen (or Lee Valley) #4- a refurbished Stanley #4 with the original iron and chipbreaker, and with a new Hock (or equivalent) iron and chipbreaker.- an old wooden coffin smoother- an old Norris infill plane."
While I suspect (and agree) that such an article would make interesting reading, one has to remember that there's not much point in evaluating such a listing purely on a performance basis. In my hands, it is true that there are performance differences between my old Stanleys, Lie-Nielsens, Norris antiques and Sauer & Stiener infills, but that's a bit irrelevant. The typical buyers of high-end planes do so for aesthetic reasons just as much as they do for performance.
I probably should stay out of this thread, especially as I come in late and have not read early posts. Anyhow, here are a few facts: the greater majority of publications of FWW, since its inception in 1975, have included an article on sharpening. I completed a search and turned up 171 articles in the first 200 magazines.
My interest in sharpening is to have a sharp handtool with which to work. Sharpening is important to achieve this end. I do not imagine that too much fine furniture was made with dull tools.
Sharpening is as much the domain of the expert as it is of the novice. The only difference is that the expert has learned (one assumes) to do it expertly. To argue that sharpening is unimportant, or is not the domain of fine woodworking, is to have some rather wierd view on woodworking. To raise sharpening above woodworking is another matter, but I really do not consider that is the option that is on the table here.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I completed a search and turned up 171 articles in the first 200 magazines.
And you honestly wonder why loyal subscribers are tired of these kinds of articles?
There are other enthusiast magazines that assume a certain number of gateway skills have been acquired by the readership.
Edited 7/9/2009 1:56 pm ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
Hi Charles
The articles cover a wide range of areas, from plane blades to carving chisels to lathe chisels to saws.
Sharpening is one of those areas where everyone can offer an opinion at some level. Every has an opinion. And so there are always going to be many takes on the topic.
Sharpening is a perennial subject. It will resurface frequently.
If you don't enjoy the subject matter, then just turn the page. Tolerance.
Regards from Perth
Derek
How many of the articles you searched were written by the same guy? Who were the authors? What other kinds of articles have they written for the magazine?
Who in the hell is this Charles guy? Is this like the Old Tools mailing list where everybody addresses their posts to "Jeff" when they have to do with certain subject matter?
Edited 7/9/2009 2:15 pm ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
Ha! I may go to the trouble to search for "sharpening" in article titles (this took a few seconds since I have the DVD collection) but there is a limit to my interest in this area. Who were the authors? You are kidding. :)
Who is Charles? Well, he is not Jeff .... Jeff is Jeff Gorman, who contributes on the Old Tools List. Charles is a shadow.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Your statistic is fatally flawed by the way. I just did a search in the cumulative index and it appears to list many articles where sharpening is not the main thrust. For example, it lists "chisel sharpening" on page 44 in Issue #18. Well, the article on page 44 of Issue 18 is "Showcase Cabinets" by James Krenov. I don't doubt that Krenov may have mentioned sharpening in that article, but it is obviously not a sharpening article by James Krenov, per se.Another example, this time for Issue 13: "chisel sharpening" is listed in the cumulative index search with a hit that lists page 56. Well, on page 56 one finds an article by Rick Butz entitled "Relief Carving, traditional methods work best." Sharpening was mentioned, but again, this is clearly not an article on sharpening itself. Google will provide a hit if an author says nothing more than "I like to work with a sharp chisel, or "I sharpen often when I'm working."Go ahead, look for yourself. Google is providing hits on articles where sharpening may have only been mentioned in a sentence or two (if not just a phrase) of a much broader topic.There have not been standalone sharpening articles in 86% of the first 200 issues as your other post asserts.Sorry.
Edited 7/9/2009 5:48 pm ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
There have not been standalone sharpening articles in 86% of the first 200 issues as your other post asserts.
OK, to check out some of these comments, I went to the first 15 publications of FWW (that was all the time I had, and more time than I care to waste on this issue).
Keep in mind that "sharpening" covers a very wide range of topics, and include really anything that is inviolved with preparing an edge on a tool. Perhaps we should include preparing a handtool as well? In the context of this thread that would be appropriate as this is really the thrust of the posts ... and the point behind sharpening)
Anyway, here are the relevant articles in the first 15 magazines. Direct from the magazine ...
Vol 1: Bench stones
Vol 2: Microbevels
Vol 4: Heat treating (making blades)
Vol 5: Making Shaper Knives (this is about grinding blades for hand beaders)
Vol 6: The Scraper (preparing one)
Vol 8: Basic Blacksmithing (making blades)
Vol12: Scratch beader (making blades for one)
Vol 13: (1) Whetstones
(2) Sharpening (two articles in this publication)
Vol 14: (1) Improving Planes
(2) Restoring Bailey Planes (two articles in this publication)
That makes 60% of the first 15 publications had at least one full article on sharpening or aspects related to the preparation of a handplane. Notable, these began with Volume #1, which indicates that these aspects were considered to be what constitutes fine woodworking!
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 7/10/2009 4:30 am ET by derekcohen
Calling an article on blacksmithing and one on making a scratch beader a 'sharpening' article is a stretch as is one about restoring planes. One could be God's gift to blacksmithing and never process a cutting tool past the rough grinding of a primary bevel, if even that.There needs to be some sort of Twelve Step program for the sharpening obsessed. Based on these boards there are lots of them - people with disproportionate investments in honing and grinding gear and who spend disproportionate amounts of time sharpening and thinking/talking about sharpening.
Edited 7/10/2009 7:18 am ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
"I probably should stay out of this thread, especially as I come in late and have not read early posts. Anyhow, here are a few facts: the greater majority of publications of FWW, since its inception in 1975, have included an article on sharpening. I completed a search and turned up 171 articles in the first 200 magazines."
Derek - I suspect your response to me was more along the lines of the general topic of the thread. I don't object to articles about sharpening, or any other woodworking technique, in the pages of FWW so long as the provide more than the usual "checklist" insight and aren't repeated too often.
My objection are tool reviews, which is a different animal altogether. I suppose my point is suggesting that the FWW by-line "A Magazine for All Woodworkers" is acheivable - but in the way that it was done in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, which is giving WWs of all stripes something to aspire to. Trying to make the magazine "for all woodworkers" by including a bunch of dross that can be had in any one of a dozen clones on the newstand is simply diluting the magazine's reputation and brand image.
Your reply to Mel was excellent, and I will support every word. Here I just wish to comment on ...
My objection are tool reviews, which is a different animal altogether. I suppose my point is suggesting that the FWW by-line "A Magazine for All Woodworkers" is acheivable - but in the way that it was done in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, which is giving WWs of all stripes something to aspire to. Trying to make the magazine "for all woodworkers" by including a bunch of dross that can be had in any one of a dozen clones on the newstand is simply diluting the magazine's reputation and brand image.
Essentially I review tools that I believe others will find interesting, and in a way that I hope they will find useful. A look at my website will reveal that tool reviews are a minority of the articles I write. Mostly I try and offer to-do pieces. It is not my intent to present tool reviews to encourage their purchase, and even in the reviews I attempt to present the tools as part of a tutorial. I accept that some woodworkers buy tools to stock a workshop and may rarely put them to use in the way that they were conceived. They are not my intended audience. Some tools may be art, but they remain tools.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek - I don't want to imply that tool reviews in and of themselves are bad. They serve a very useful purpose - when I want to go get another portable power tool, I generally check the on-line tool review section of FWW's site, and several others.
It's just that it doesn't belong in Fine Woodworking the Magazine. The conclusions are going to be out of date very quickly, particularly in rapidly changing power tools.
The web is an excellent place for this sort of content, where changes to the landscape that might modify the conclusions of a review can be easily and quickly updated.
It's just that it doesn't belong in Fine Woodworking the Magazine.
OK, then what does belong in FWW magazine? Who is going to decide what is fine woodworking material?
There are just so many divergant interests and views. Have a look at these articles. I ran through about 15 and thoughtthese interesting ...
Issue 5 – Dealing with Plywood<!----><!----><!---->
Issue 8 – Aztec Drum<!----><!---->
Issue 9 – Basic Blacksmithing<!----><!---->
Issue 13 – Making a Microscope<!----><!---->
Issue 18 – Laying plastic laminates<!----><!---->
Opinions?
Regards from Perth
Derek
"OK, then what does belong in FWW magazine? Who is going to decide what is fine woodworking material?"
This is my main bone to pick with the leadership at Taunton. FWW was started with a vision, and it was a good one. Generally it was focused on furniture at the very top of the heap, though other things made it into it from time to time. What seems to be happening in the last 5 years or so is "management by customer focus groups", and that's a dumb way to run a business. It's the mantra that is oft-repeated by business consultants, along with "lean Sigma" "Just in Time Inventory" and other jargon, but it's misleading.
You can't run any business well if the major input is solely customer focus groups, it takes vision. And in fact, sometimes that vision is something that runs counter to superficial polls and surveys, at least in the short term. Since you're not from the US, you might not be as familiar with this as those of us over 40, but the "New Coke" fiasco in the early eighties is an excellent example of why management-by-survey isn't OK. Coke was losing their mind over a percentage point or so of market share that they lost to Pepsi, so they came up with "new coke" designed as a sweeter, less carbonated version of coke to compete with a similar taste as Pepsi. They conduted lots of taste tests that told them that New Coke was preferred over even their standard Coke formula, but there was a fatal flaw in the testing. Generally speaking, people will state that a given food or drink tastes better if it's sweeter if it's given to them in small amounts, which was the case in the "taste tests" - little 2 oz. cups of soft drink. Instead of introducing a new soft drink to sell along side Coke, they replaced the #1 selling soft drink in history with a new product, and it was an absolute disaster. Their established customer base hated it, and they got killed in the marketplace until they came back with "Coke Classic" (the old formula). Even then, their customer base felt betrayed, and many had already switched to another brand - it took years for Coke to recover.
I can draw a parallel with Taunton - the latest poll "What Tool Should We Review" did not include a critical question/choice, which is "none". There are certainly parallels here with the New Coke sequence, where in a rather vain attempt at getting market share, the company alienates their existing customer base by going after a slice of the market that's fickle at best.
Most newbies I know do not pick FWW for a subscription - they will occasionally buy a copy at the newstand. They are, however, much more likely to subscribe to or regularly buy magazines that are largely filled with plans of simple things to build, tool reviews, jig building, and other things. The key point here is that there are already established brands in this arena that FWW cannot compete with - they are far too late to the game with a beginner's magazine. But by diluting the content in their flagship, they are alienating their established, loyal customer base with multi-year subscriptions. In other words, their "cash cow".
Meanwhile, one of the only magazines currently published that specifically started as a way to challenge readers with something they didn't think they could do, and to provide a platform for showcasing the best of the best, gets diluted into "how-to" articles and jig building tips. Not good, and I know at least 5 individuals that are long-time woodworkers out of a total of 8 that have cancelled their subscription because they're sick of seeing an "ultimate jig" as the headline article. And I may well do the same if the magazine continues on the current path or gets worse, though I hesitate to do that - FWW was something I eagerly awaited in the 80s and 90s, and it's always tough to let an old friend go that's gone down the wrong path.
In regards to your specific post, I think you're aware of the debate tactic of "drawing out by abherrant examples", since you've a background in the social sciences. I suspect you're aware the the magazine that's published now has a very different feel than the ones published up to the mid 90's.
This is all I'll say on this matter for now. It's a pointless waste of time to try to get this message across to the Taunton editors and owners. Perhaps they will figure it out before they lose most of their subscribed base and turn into (the modern version) of American Woodworker, perhaps they won't.
Edited 7/12/2009 12:02 pm ET by dkellernc
Hi David
Up to a point I agree with you about management driving a vision, as opposed to responding to that of perceived public desire. My analogy for this lies in politics where parties constantly poll the public and revise their policies to fit. I'd prefer a political party that stood up for specific principles and stood by them damn the consequences. Of course this makes for a poor business, and the chances are that you would not be around for long since the population is too small to support such specialisation.
The magazine that came closest to this in recent years was Woodworking. Sadly now defunct. Woodworking was under the helm of a single editor and he decided policy and content. The owner went along with his opinion, trusting and respecting his views ... but then (as I understand) the magazine was a hobby for the owner and profits were less important. When the Woodworking was sold, and a new editor took over - blessedly continuing where the previous editor left off - the new owners must have read the writing on the wall (about this being a White Elephant), and shut it down (diverting all energy to its sister publication, American Woodworker).
You cannot have it both ways. Look at Popular Woodworking. Christopher Schwarz has done a very fine job at building an identity for the magazine with much publicity via blogs, tool reviews (yes, tool reviews! ... so readers appear to want them), and creating themes (e.g. building benches, the articles of Adam Cherubini, revival of joints making techniques such as drawboring, etc). Yet in content the magazine (which I subscribe too along with FWW) is not much different to FWW - it also has a mix of power and handwork, tool reviews, etc. Frankly, Woodworking also included tool reviews and how-to-dos. Where Woodworking stood out was that it offered design that was often very progressive and thought provoking (for me at least). And I loved that. And mourn the passing of the magazine.
Can FWW return to its heyday? I recognise that the likelihood of specialisation - in this day and age of greater competition for a small potential readership - it is increasingly less likely that I will only get what I want in a single publication. For survival magazines have to be many things for many interests.
Several years ago I created A Rule For Purchasing a Magazine. In the newsagent I would brouse through the publication first to check the content. My Rule was that there had to be at least three articles that I would want to read. Even one less than that and I would pass on its purchase.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 7/11/2009 10:08 pm ET by derekcohen
Derek - I said I'd keep my mouth shut after I got off my soapbox, and certainly the points I made have been posted over and over again by other readers of the magazine - whether FWW ignores those points, which seems to be the case, is their business (and probably a short-lived one at that).
But the reason for this post is a slight correction - "Woodworking" is very much still in business. It's a magazine published by the editors of Popular Woodworking with no advertising (yeah - no advertising! how's that for turning a business model on its head) and a quite different tact on content. Rather than serving as an "educational tool" where existing knowledge is condensed and printed, the idea is to focus the articles and topics on analysis - it is quite good, and usually food for thought.
The magazine that you refer to is "WoodWork", and I was a faithful subscriber for years. What separated it from the pack was an interview with a semi-professional or professional woodworker in every issue, and a focus on design, not technique. That didn't mean that there wasn't technique content in it, just that it was usually part of a complex project article. And yeah, the publisher of AWW killed it, but I don't think that was because it was losing money - just that the return on investment did not meet the expectations of modern business consultants. There are lots of businesses like that that very fortunately have owners that put wax in their ears when the "Lean Sigma" folks came calling. That the publisher of AWW couldn't deal with a good magazine in its stable isn't surprising, considering how bad AWW became (the earlier issues were quite good).
Yes, Woodwork ... I loved those interviews.
Heh .. David, I understand that all subscribers were switched to American Woodworker .. are you enjoying it? :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
"Heh .. David, I understand that all subscribers were switched to American Woodworker .. are you enjoying it? :)"
No, but fortunately only 2 issues of AW will darken my door. I decided not to re-up when I saw the announcement that Ross Periodicals was going to sell Woodwork last year. The first (and only) issue of Woodwork - Spring 2009 under the new management was actually quite nice. Too bad it's the only one.
I was so irritated with what happened to American Woodworker that I purged my dwelling of all back issues after year 2000. The early ones were really a pretty good magazine - shows what can happen!
When Woodwork closed down I started receiving issues of American Woodworker in its place, followed shortly thereafter by letters containing exhortations to renew my subscription to the magazine.
The problem for me with American Woodworker, which I did read a bit back in the early 1990s is the content derived from reading four or five recent issues of the magazine, and I can summarise in one word-- underwhelming. There is nothing in it concerning techniques, design or projects that ever seems to get beyond respectively, middling, derivative and elementary.
I did like Woodwork for its offbeat take on the subject, not in every article, but in enough to hold my interest.
I have to declare an interest as Woodwork did publish my drivellings from time to time, and I really enjoyed working with the editor, John Lavine, so I guess I'm biased, ha, ha. Slainte.richardjonesfurniture.com
The old ones, the ones in black and white and the first few years in color, were great. Rodale Press was pretty solid before the Reader's Digest decimation.
I agree about the Rodale Press work, I have some of their old reference books and they are still "go to".
Yep, it was pretty good stuff.
I've never seen an issue of American Woodworker with black and white photographs. That may be because I came across the magazine for the first time around 1993 when I moved to the US and lived there for ten years. Prior to that I lived in the UK, which is where I live again now-- I suspect you already know that, but your handle is a relatively new one around this forum so see no reason why I shouldn't pass on that titbit of information. Slainte.richardjonesfurniture.com
The old black and white ones from the 80s were good. They published six issues per year.
Edited 7/13/2009 3:41 pm ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
The first (and only) issue of Woodwork - Spring 2009 under the new management was actually quite nice. Too bad it's the only one.
I agree, the last edition of Woodwork was decent - I thought it was in the best tradition of the early publications. The irony is that, I read this one on a 12 hour flight across the Atlantic, savouring every word of the interviews, enjoying the furniture on show, and made the decision to finally take out a subscription (as the formula appeared to be continuing unchanged) ... and then discovered that Woodwork was closing down. All that was left was to order back copies, which I did.
Regards from Perth
Derek
To be fair, the current owners of AW haven't been there very long -- bought it from Readers Digest a couple of years ago. Not that there's a huge improvement. There was supposed to be an annual issue of Woodwork later this year -- who knows? In the meantime the desperately lonely Woodwork website has introduced the wonders of Flickr. Doesn't seem a match.
Jim
David,
Glad you think the article might be fun. You said: The typical buyers of high-end planes do so for aesthetic reasons just as much as they do for performance."I think you are one of those rare smart wise persons who thinks that everyone else is as smart and wise as you are. I get a much much different view of people who have and want to buy boutique planes here on Knots. Lataxe, for example, is a cheerleader for Philip. Derek is a cheerleader for boutique planes, and does tests that show differences on woods from Australia that I would never use. Besides the triumvirate of Derek-Philip-Lataxe and makers like Ron, there are others around here who tout the boutique stuff, ostensibly for performance. In the past few weeks, I have seen woodworkers talk about the possibility of getting a boutique plane for their astounding capabilities, which they know nothing of. I personally have taken a lot of heat (and thoroughly enjoyed it) from the "pro-expensive-planes" gang. This week is the first time that I have seen well respected people come out and actually say that such planes are not for improved performance. I am thrilled to see that happen. You have probably had more experience with different types of hand planes than anyone else on the globe, except maybe for Lee Richmond, and you are looked upon as a person to learn from. While I think that the idea of boutique planes being worth $2000 or $10,000 is dead, but I still would like to see such a test done by FWW in a very objective manner. Thank you for your response.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
"You said: The typical buyers of high-end planes do so for aesthetic reasons just as much as they do for performance."
I think you are one of those rare smart wise persons who thinks that everyone else is as smart and wise as you are. I get a much much different view of people who have and want to buy boutique planes here on Knots. Lataxe, for example, is a cheerleader for Philip. Derek is a cheerleader for boutique planes, and does tests that show differences on woods from Australia that I would never use. Besides the triumvirate of Derek-Philip-Lataxe and makers like Ron, there are others around here who tout the boutique stuff, ostensibly for performance. In the past few weeks, I have seen woodworkers talk about the possibility of getting a boutique plane for their astounding capabilities, which they know nothing of."
Mel - My attitude towards this subject goes a bit further. I think the thought that underlies some of the (for lack of a better word) "anti-fine-tool" crowd is just as invalid as thinking that one must have a $2000 Norris in their arsenal. Both are completely incorrect.
One side of this seems to have the attitude that I'll roughly paraphrase as either "I don't have the cash for a Karl Holtey, and never will. But I can make myself feel better by thinking that those that lust after them are "drunken sailors" (foolish spenders)". The other side in some cases will invent performance differences in cases where logic would indicate that none exists, and it seems an effort to justify a high-end purchase solely on performance grounds, which tacitly agrees that aesthetics are somehow irrelevant to a wise purchase.
Both attitudes are ridiculous. The purpose for a Ferrari is not to merely get you to the grocery store, nor is its purpose to "show off" to the rest of the population, though there are certainly some that might use it for that. The point of a Ferrari, and owning a Ferrari, is to acknowledge that an automobile that pushes the engineering limits of what is possible for the sole joy of driving is an worthwhile end in and of itself. I will never be able to afford a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean that I sneer at those that have the resources and the desire to own one.
Similarly, insisting that those that will only ever consider a plain brown Honda Accord that's at least 10 years old have their priorities messed up is equally invalid. There is no doubt that a newer car would be safer, more fuel efficient and less polluting, but if someone chooses to economize in this area, so be it - so long as they don't insist that everyone else that drives something newer and fancier is somehow less worthy than someone of lesser means or that pinches pennies tighter.
The basis for my attitude about this is that I think it is one of the more absurd aspects of human behavior to think that being cheap is somehow noble and worthy of praise, while spending one's wealth on material things is somehow sleazy. Just as invalid is thinking that someone that chooses to live a life of poverty doing something they love (like being a teacher, a professional one-off furniture maker, or a museum interpreter) has somehow missed life's fundamental purpose.
David,
No argument from me on your ideas on planes.
I don't push for dressing in sackcloth and ashes.
I have some nice LNs even though the job could be done with my fettled Stanleys or woodies. I enjoy using the LNs. I also believe in focussing on increasing my skills in using tools. A tool is only as good as its user. You didn't learn all you know about planes overnight. It took a lot of practice to learn how to make the tools sing. I also believe in focussing on designing and making pieces of furniture. Tools are only there to allow me to get the furniture or carving made. Tools are, to me, a means toward and end. If I went to your home, I would like to spend time with the things you have made. I would be far less interested in your shop. I have noticed that here on Knots, more than other places, folks take something you said, and push it way into a corner. I suppose they think that is fun. I don't tend to respond to such stuff. I don't believe my ideas on tools are very novel or very interesting. I consider you quite expert in the area of hand tools, especially older tools. That is why I asked you lots of questions. When I considered your responses, I found them all to be quite reasonable. Thank you for your help with my obtaining of some old woodies. Thank you.
Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
I would like to see FWW do a head to head test on a number of smoothers;- a Holtey- a Marcou- a Lie Nielsen (or Lee Valley) #4- a refurbished Stanley #4 with the original iron and chipbreaker, and with a new Hock (or equivalent) iron and chipbreaker.- an old wooden coffin smoother- an old Norris infill plane.
I'd like to see all of them attack a dozen or so types of wood, from simple and soft, to hard and difficult grain that "normal" fine woodworkers often encounter. I suppose, for the fun of it, you could throw in a few pieces of lumber from Australia.
Mel,
Check out this link:
http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/haspc.shtml
-Jerry
Jerry,
Thank you very much for letting me know about the article: "High angle smoothing plane comparison" by Lyn J. Mangiameli. I read it thoroughly and enjoyed it immensely. Lyn showed how difficult (impossible) to do a valid comparison of planes. There is no doubt that he tried mightily to do a valid comparison, and that he tried mightily to be fair and thorough.I now believe that doing another such comparison would be a waste of time. Also, that article showed that the short, simplistic reviews that Derek does aren't very useful. I have talked with Derek about this, and about adding other variables. I believe that Derek's answer was that they already take too long. I fully agree with him. Based on my reading of Lyn's article, the thing that stands out most to me is the only sensible approach to selecting planes is: Take whatever you have, adjust the blade angle to be appropriate, and plane away. As Lyn said, you can take a Lie Nielsen 4.5 and get performance that just about equals the plane that he liked best. The one thing that disappointed me about Lyn's article was that while he did find differences in the surfaces made by different plans, and he rated each, he never said whether the differences are big enough to be worth worrying about.I also noted that Lyn admits to being a control freak, and he had a more difficult time adjusting the irons on wood planes than he had on metal planes. There are a lot of woodworkers who can adjust the irons on wood planes just fine. As I try to put all of this in perspective, I can only come up with one thing - in the overall pursuit of making fine furniture, the selection of planes is not very important. Think of all of the cabinetmakers who made furniture in the 1700s and 1800s (before Holtey was born), such as the Townsends and the Goddards. The design and the craftsmanship is WONDERFUL. Look at the furniture of Sam Maloof. He made his own planes. If one wants to make great furniture, one has to get over the concern of which planes to use. It just doesn't make enough difference to make it worth thinking about. Thank you for letting me know about Lyn's article. My life will never be the same. Have fun,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
An ECE wedged smoother with a cap iron and an adjustable mouth but without the Primus adjusting mechanism costs $179 through Adria Tools. The bedding angle is 50* (no upcharge on a replaceable 'frog') and the mouth is adjustable - you can close 'er up as tight as you want. The cutter is fully supported on a wooden bed (the entire plane body is wood) all the way to the sole - a design proven through centuries of use.If somebody can't smooth a board with this plane then they ought to take up collecting baseball cards.
Edited 7/10/2009 9:00 am ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
PF,
I have not used that plane, but I have heard and read good words about it. You have confirmed them. Nice price too.
Thank you.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
ECE also makes a plane iron with a replaceable cutter for this and its other Primus line. Comes with three fresh edges. It looks like insert tooling - the body of the cutter is of a traditional shape but the "business end" is the replaceable part. I don't have one, but it's interesting to know of its availability I think.Packages of five replacements are available as well.Catalog available as a PDF download here:http://www.ecemmerich.com/index.html
Edited 7/10/2009 10:48 am ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
PF,
I wish there was a place that sells ECE planes here in Northern Virginia so that I could try them out. I will check with some friends who may have one or two. Thank you.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
When you order from Eddie at Adria Tools they are drop shipped from David Warren Direct - the North American distributor.
They make great wood planes at sane price points. You can have your choice of 'bottom wood' (hornbeam or lignum vitae) on most of their planes; they are made in several interations with/without cap irons, with/without mouth adjustment (smoothing planes, rebate planes) and of course with/without the Primus adjusting mechanism.
They've been in business since 1852. I like that.
Edited 7/10/2009 2:51 pm ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
Since you have experience with them, I would like your advice on the combination of features that would be most appropriate for a smoother. Lignum? The adjusting mechanism? cap iron? Even if it is "just because I think so", I'd like to know your reason for each recommendation.
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
I rec'd the Primus smoother as a gift a while back (very fortuitous). Give me the weekend to formulate a thoughtful response to your questions.
Thanks.
"Are you kidding? Can you imagine how anxious woodworkers and historians would be to read tool tests from 200 years ago - 150 years ago - etc.
"In this issue of Ye Olde Cabinet Maker we compare the Kenyon saws to ..."
So, FWW reviews might likewise have an avid audience in a couple centuries. ;-)"
Hmm - You've got a point, though I think it was made in jest. Somehow I don't think the business folks at Taunton see a couple-of-centuries from now audience as a desirable revenue stream. ;-)
"I can't imagine they believe that anyone will want to re-read a tool test from a year ago, much less 15 years ago."
I must admit, there isn't a week that goes by that I don't re-read the plunge router test from issue 66 (September/October 1987). In case you missed it, this is sarcasm at its best.
Truthfully, I had never considered that angle before, but tool test do have a somewhat short shelf life.
Rob Millardhttp://www.americanfederalperiod.com
I disagree with the elite crowd that seems to be taking over this thread. Tool tests do belong, unless of course you want a community so small it can not sustain the publication. Lighten up, get a life and maybe learn to tolerate the lesser mortals that aspire to your level of self appointed greatness.
Dan Carroll
Edited 7/8/2009 6:14 pm ET by DanCC
Dan,
I assume, that I am one of those you label as an elitist or claim that I appointed myself to a level of greatness; I'm not and I didn't.
I believe tool reviews, belong in the Tool & Shop Issue, and that the other issues should focus on techniques of fine woodworking, a pretty apt point of view considering the title of the magazine.
Rob Millardhttp://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Rob, with all due respect, reread your posts. You may not think of your self as I have described, but that is how you come across.
Dan Carroll
Edited 7/8/2009 8:31 pm ET by DanCC
Dan,
We disagree on a range of subjects, from magazine content to proper etiquette.
Rob Millard
http://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Dan, do you think nuclear physicists responsible for our nation's nuclear arsenal read Popular Mechanics or academic journals in their field of specialty?I hope it's the latter.Hypothetically speaking, would there be something wrong with a publication that featured mostly advanced woodworking topics and no tool reviews at all?What if Fine Woodworking had, not just one Master Class article, but a magazine full of them - every single issue?
Edited 7/9/2009 9:12 am ET by Poner_Jobon
Last time I checked most academic journals were either exclusively online or going out of business. I don't think that is a reasonable business model. I have never thought of FWW as targeted at a small, exclusive audience and I doubt its publishers have either. Your observation about the master class section(s) I think makes the point -- FWW is not now aimed exclusively at the 'master' woodworker, but a various levels and to make what comes across as condescending posts about those who are not masters is I think out of line and shows a basic disrespect of the rest of the community. I have held my fire about this for quite some time and I will likely hold my fire in the future, but my frustration got the better of me and I unloaded the other night. Most folks here are nice and more than willing to help and are great folks. Dan Carroll
The title would seem to imply that the magazine is at a minimum aimed at a group of people who are capable of outfitting a shop without having to read superficial tool reviews. Aren't these reviews almost always a case of 'usual suspects?' When was the last time an offering from Harbor Freight won an Editor's Choice designation? Do you think there's a snowball's chance that an Anant plane will receive better marks than its counterpart from Lie-Nielsen or Lee Valley? When was the last time you saw something you would consider to be "fine woodworking" come out of the shop of a guy who routinely scratches his hiney while trying to figure out what brand of tool to buy? Do you really need to read a tool review in FW to know that a Bosch offering will almost always (if not every time) be ranked higher than something from the Ryobi range?FW, until fairly recently, never seemed to be a magazine aimed at droolers trying to tease out the difference between Milwaukee, Ridgid, and Black & Decker.
Edited 7/9/2009 11:06 am ET by Poner_Jobon
"I disagree with the elite crowd that seems to be taking over this thread. Tool tests do belong, unless of course you want a community so small it can not sustain the publication. Lighten up, get a life and maybe learn to tolerate the lesser mortals that aspire to your level of self appointed greatness."
The absence or presence of tool tests in FWW has nothing to do with being an elitist or a commoner, as the case may be. And it is not a case of tool reviews being inappropriate in any woodworking publication - they are just not appropriate in Fine Woodworking.
The magazine's purpose going back to its founding is to showcase the top of the craft, but that has little or nothing to do with the capabilities of the reader. I eagerly read the old FWW even though I wasn't capable of anything in the pages. The point is to give the readership something to aspire to, not to match up with thier abilities, and considering that the magazine has been published for decades, that philosophy was clearly a successful one.
And as Rob has pointed out, there is a special publication by Taunton once a year that is nothing but tool reviews, shop set-ups, jig building, etc... And there is also the FWW webstie - there is plenty of outlet for those that wish to read tool reviews by the Taunton staff, it just doesn't belong in the magazine (the same can be said of "ultimate router table" designs).
I disagree with you, and we are not going to change each others minds, so lets leave it there and remember that men (and women) of good will can disagree without always being disagreeable. I enjoy the tool reviews and while I am not usually in the market, it is nice to see what has changed since I purchased a router (table saw, etc) ten years ago. The tool review issue is a compilation of what has appeared in the mag over the last years and as such does not have the detail that appears in the actual article. I agree that FWW is about aspiring to better work, which I submit means that there ought to be articles that are targeted to different levels of expertise and that urge all on to better work. There are some that come across as not willing to put up with the aspiring, and only want their expert interests to be targeted. Dan Carroll
Just for fun, I disagree. Even at the level the tools tend to be compared, the information is valuable to many subscribers. In general, I think the reviewers do a good job, especially considering the limited space (number of pages) they have to present the results, and the corresponding limitations on the brands selected.Plus, from a publishing perspective, the reviews are probably essential, in that they inspire and/or support ad revenue.
"... I'm not that talented, I'm a lazy hobbyist who would rather work wood than metal. Let the flame wars begin!"
No flames here but no one can help you overcome limits you impose on yourself. I will tell you there's no talent involved in making sharpening simple and fast, faster than the equipment you're looking at. It's all very simple technique and proper maintenance of a few sharpening tools.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled