Folks, I post some pictures of the evolution of planes being made by me, for those who are interested.
The first four are of fixed mouths, the next three in progress now are to have adjustable mouths.The one in a display cabinet is for a non-user.
Unfortunately the quality of photography is not improving fast enough, but I am working on it.
I want to hear all comments please.Philip Marcou
Edited 1/28/2006 8:29 pm by philip
Replies
All I can say is WOW!
One comment, outstanding!
They look as good or better than any plane I've ever seen, including Holtey's 98! But they still look approachable, like you could use any of them! If you know what I mean.
Great job on the dovetails, likewise on the choice of the different metals. They just wink at you!
David C.
Edited 1/28/2006 9:21 pm ET by DCarr10760
Philip,
Just gorgeous...I don't know what else to say. Personally I admit to being in love with tools at least as much as I am with wood. You made me drool.
DR
They are just beautiful! Do they work as well as they look? I'm sure they do. I'm curious as to the shape of the tote. It looks as though it is somewhere between a LN and LV. How did you arrive at the shape?
Low, the ornery old Stanley/Record shape handle is the basis of my handle there. Actually I feel that Lee Valley have not done themselves proud with their shape, and it is interesting to note that L.Nielsen have stuck to the classic shape.Philip Marcou
Excellent looking planes! They look really great! I love the case you have for one of the planes as well. Very nice!It's funny I was just saying on another thread that there's some good infill plane information over at http://www.handplane.com but you probably don't need any extra info on dovetailing and such. Still, they have a few plans/diagrams over there as well.PB
Pete, thanks for the kind words and the link-on the contrary, I need all information I can get on planes.Philip Marcou
Being very much a tool freak my question is are you going to be making these for sale and if so what sizes and what is a ball park price range.
Garth
Very Nice! You set High standards. I have taken an interest in plane making, I have made 3 Shoulder planes from kits, a Krenov style "Jack" plane, I am starting to build a Norris A6 from another kit and have started working on a wooden smooth. I have been wanting to design / build a fenced rabbit plane. I was wondering about the brass / bronze you used on your planes. How did you spec it out? Where do you get such material.
Again very nice work. I hope you enjoy using them as much as you appear to have enjoyed making them.
Will Graham
Will the brass I use is alloy #C26000 Brass Plate-good for peening. Also known as Cartridge Brass, or 70/30. I don't buy anything from scrap merchants because there is no way of telling what one is getting.
In the States you should be able to get this from a metal merchant-brass is no longer cheap.Philip Marcou
Splendid work! Thanks for sharing with us.
A couple of questions - Do you use any stock parts, or are you fabricating everything?
I'm curious about your design process - what are you starting with? Bed size? Blade size? The more "custom" planes like yours I see, the more I want to try my hand at building one. I'm just not sure that my usual process of "just go out and buy a book to start learning a new skill" will work in this case, so any advice would be appreciated. Thanks again,
-----wade hutchison
butchering wood in Milton, PA
Wade, no I don't think a book will go the whole way, but they can be helpful.
In this case I started with sole size, the bevel up low angle concept and the desire to use the Veritas blade which seems to be as good as one can get.
The only thing then that I don't fabricate is the blade and some fixing screws.
I have some D2 steel in narrower widths, which I know will make superb blades, given suitable heat treatment-we are paying plenty for the A2 steel-as if it is a magical new creation.
Philip Marcou
Thanks for the reply.
I'm looking at some of the St. James Bay stuff, and may try my hand at a kit first before fabricating something from scratch. Besides, I can't take _too_ much time away from the wood, or I'll just end up farther behind.
-----wade
Butchering wood in Milton, PA, USA
Wolf, have you read Malcolm's posts about his Shepherd kit plane? I think it is a good plan to do a kit first.
Philip Marcou
Nice work as always Philip. Don't hide your light under a bushel - he's making these things with sales in mind folks - just form an orderly queue!
Malcolm
Thanks Malcolm.You are hereby appointed "Marketing Director-International Operations" (;)Philip Marcou
Philip
That loud thump your feeling right now is my hand, patting you on the back. Great job.
Jeff
Looks great.
Troy
Thanks Metod.
The "more rectangular form" you refer to , also known as the Bedrock shape in my mind,has endeared itself to me not only because it appeals esthetically, but because those top edges will be parallel to the sole , making life easier for me when I need to do things to the sole-one of those happy co-incidences.
I have been in plane making mode for some time now , and this time I have an ulterior motive for phtographically documenting the various stages of the process. In fact I have recorded 15 stages, each with about 5 or more photos-so now the problem is to co-ordinate it all into something of interest to folk.
Here are some examples-just pictures without prose for the moment.
Philip
Let me know when I can buy one before you get too expensive!!
:)
Jeff
Now is the time. Unsurpassed value. Collectors dream. Entirely created by the maker. Get in before there is an Accountant Attack and parts are out sourced in Mozambique.Philip Marcou
I sent you an email. If you don't get it, email me at [email protected], and I'll reply direct.
Jeff
so this is where ya been hidin all this time huh...?? I guess it beats workin for a livin... ;P
Not bad Sir... not too shabby at all.....
ya got names / numbers for them yet..??????
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Thank you kindly , sire.
No names apart from "my smoother", but they are numbered consecutively for ease of identification.
Possibly the next lot will be called "dumpy smoothers" ?Philip Marcou
Possibly the next lot will be called "dumpy smoothers" ?
wait.... they shrink in the wash...??????? scaled down t suit shop fairies...???
now I'm confused....Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
nae need fer confusion.
The truth is that from a sheet of gauge plate 500mmx 150mm one can get two smoother soles such as I have been making-then there is a piece aprox. 200mm long left- I envisage a shorter plane , with narrower blade possibly . Something that could be used with one hand maybe, but still with more heft than the typical block plane. Who knows-will have to think on it.Philip Marcou
along the lines of a low angle #3 or am I still thinking too big..???
Sounds like you'll be pretty close to building a charriot or thumb plane...
http://www.holteyplanes.com/a28.htm
http://www.holteyplanes.com/a31.htmMike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Something like that , except that I see no reason for a huge long blade sticking out the back-looks like hell and not comfortable to grab.It will not be a run of the mill item-why make more of the same.
I wish some body would come up with a practical experience on that varaible pitch plane by Econocalamari.Have you seen one there in bonny Scotland yet?Philip Marcou
Oh, you mean this one?
View Image
I stood there and listened to John Economaki explain it to Thomas Lie-Nielsen about a week ago. I tinkered with it a little. I didn't, however, try to make all the adjustments to move things around.
Thomas tells me Economaki is a brilliant designer and the design is amazing. As to use, that may be something else. The one I used worked okay but I thought it made the Stanley #55 look simple when it came to use and setting. That may be unfair, just my impression without actually trying to change anything.
Yes Larry, that is the one .
To me the shape of certain parts may not be 100% appealing , but the concept , workmanship and overall impression gained only from pictures and the glossy brochure lead me to expect nuclear performance.
I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you are , er, underwhelmed? If this is the case can you tell us why?
Also , I can't see why it would be complicated to work, prompting you to make comparison with the Stanley #45.
I'm not likely to see one in this part of the planet, so I am tantalised.Philip Marcou
"....I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you are , er, underwhelmed? If this is the case can you tell us why?..."Well Philip, I guess it goes back to woodworking. What's your primary woodworking product? Is it shavings or do you make anything? What problems does this variable pitch solve for the productive wood worker? Did you know there was a functional variable pitch plane on the market in the 1800's? If I remember right it was made by Marsh but I'm not interested enough to go look it up and verify that; at any rate it wasn't successful in attracting customers.What attracts you to any given plane? Is it what Patrick Leach calls the "gizmosity factor"--gimmicks? Are you a crow--is it shiny brass and other metals that attract you? Are you looking for functional tools or shelf candy to impress visitors?When I think about woodworking tools, I think about function. I want tools that help with tasks--preparing stock; fitting joinery; manipulating scale, proportion and visual weight with moldings; and finishing surfaces. Show me a genre of planes that do that, do it in a straight forward manner, and do it well. I think the only category of planes that ever did this are the deceptively simple traditional wooden planes.Unfortunately even wooden planes weren't immune to market forces. In the beginning stages of the industrial revolution and mass production plane makers were pressured to add gimmicks to stand out from the competition, cut labor costs and, a little later, to add machines to speed production. Early attempts at adding machine work to wooden plane making were driven by labor costs and machines didn't work as accurately as people. The quality of the planes began to fall.It amazes me that the quality, capability and range of planes of the 18th Century hasn't been equaled since. By the third quarter of the 18th Century the best planes I've seen were in production. It was a highly evolved mature technology, as sophisticated as the architectural and furniture masterpieces it helped produce. I find their form, function, beauty and tactile quality unmatched by anything made since. I am continuously amazed by the skill and knowledge of 18th Century plane makers. We rediscover lost knowledge regularly while trying to bring these planes back. If you want to move plane making forward, I think the greatest source of information is found by looking back.
economy squid..?? nuh uh.... canna say I've heard o that around here...
heard of Bridge City tho... that count..??? ;)Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Nice planes, Phillip. Wish I could afford a couple.
As far as the photography, check out the fabric tents used for photographing small objects. Check eBay for "light tent" or `photography light box' (the latter without quotes). Very handy for taking nice photos.
"An up-to-date book on making both, metal and wooden planes could be well received by the market"
I agree!
Craft planemaking has taken big steps in the past year or so. There are now a number of people making a wide variety of tools, all around the world, from the high-tec multi-adjusters to the high-end trad designs of Holtey, and fair dose of art as well.
There's a great book waiting to be written!
Malcolm
Edited 2/25/2006 4:03 am ET by Malcolm
Metod - Yes, you are a crow by the sounds of it. Don't worry though, I am too...as are many others on the forum.
I re-read what larry had written a few times over and I could not find any real fault with what he said. Yes, the most "complete" range of woodworking planes HAVE to be the woodies - if nothing else but from a purely historical point of view. No-one, not even Stanley, matched the range of planes that the manufacturers of wooden planes did. You just have to look at virtually any old catalog for that. That said, however, it's much easier to cart a #45 or #55 around than a crate of woodies. The trade off though is that you end up with a tool that does no one job as effectively as a dedicated woodie.
It's an interesting debate whether form should follow function or should function follow form in planemaking.
I think that up through the mid 19th century, function ruled. Tools were simple, and elegant (with some notable exceptions). There is real beauty in wooden planes but it is tied up (in my opinion) in their simple functionality.
I think it is similar in concept to Shaker furniture. Mostly unadorned, but beautiful in proportion.
There is beauty in some metal planes too, in my opinion. Not the busy cast-in floral designs in Stanley's early combination planes, but the curve in the sides of the Bailey patterned planes, for instance, and with some English and Scottish infills.
I think this renaissance in planemaking is wonderful. It is good to see people making the full range of types, from the simple, functional elegant woodies to the glittering jewels made by Holtey and our own Malcolm and Philip.
Of course, the Renaissance was followed by the Baroque. The danger is to allow function to become entirely secondary to gizmocity and the zeal to combine as many kinds of different colored metals and features into a plane, and still have it look like a plane. Taken too far and it really isn't a plane any more, its an objet D'Arte, made for Art's sake. A beautiful but essentially irrelevant mechanical tour de force.
There of course is a balance point where perfect function meets ideal form. The challenge is knowing if one has reached it without overtaking it.
This is, of course, subject to each persons own aesthetic.
As for Ekonomahi-mahi's creation, I can't imagine it banging around in the till of too many peoples toolboxes. It will, I bet, remain a sidebar in the yet to be written great history of planemaking.
I knew that Art History and Critique course would come in handy someday!
Cheers,
David C.
Edited 2/25/2006 10:36 pm ET by DCarr10760
Interesting thread. I hope people won't mind if I throw my two cents in...
Firstly, I must say that they are great looking planes, Philip. Nice tight dovetails and classy workmanship. I'm impressed by the clean lines and traditional "non-traditional infill" design which is becoming more popular nowadays. The graphic on the lever cap looks great too. Have you etched or laser cut this? Have you made any more planes other than these? Also, if you're worried about the cost and/or size restrictions of gauge plate, just use normal bright mild steel. Very cheap stuff and available in lots of sizes.
I'm also in agreement with you in regards to people starting out with a kit, as it takes a lot of the guess work out of things. The Shepherd kits look like excellent value for money. I know what you mean by having very long blades (as you said about Karl's thumb planes) but, as you know, this is just tradition and gives the buyer a sense of relief to know that they can sharpen it down until the cows come home - even though a lot of Karl's (and other makers) planes end up sitting on bookshelves, rather than making bookshelves. That's perfectly fine by me though and everyone to their own, I say.
While I've not seen the variable-pitch plane by B.C.T. in person I'd have to say that it's excellent eye candy (yes, I am also a crow swayed by shiny gleaming things in steel, bronze and rosewood). It does look very complicated though, as Larry has stated, and the idea of variable pitch has been around for a while now - one or two centuries in fact. My personal favorite is Leonard Bailey's "pull the pin out the side and stick it in another hole" variable pitch prototype. Sure it would work like c**p, but it still looks unique. Can't remember the Marsh one (I thought they were cheapish Stanleys?) but I tend to forget more things than I can remember. There was also the Watkinson plane in the 1930's for cool variable-pitch gizmosity.
Yeah sure, they look weird and wonderful, are highly collectible and (some) may actually work reasonably well, but they are as much of a gimmick as corrugations, holes, self-oilers, squigly lines, dimples, swiveling frogs, split-soled, rosewood wear-strips and brightly colored plastic. Do I love all that stuff? Hell, yeah! But I still recognize it for what it is - a marketing gimmick. Apart from using slightly different materials there is absolutely nothing new in handplanes nowadays that hasn't been done already - and most of it in the 1800's!
I agree with Metod and Malcolm that a new book on making planes is due. Can't have too many books on that subject!
I also agree with what Larry and Pete say about wooden planes. Now I'm not a "woodie" guy myself - though I do have some favorite woodies that I use - it is true that they represent the greatest variation of handplanes. Anything done in metal has first been done in wood in some way or another. I think the most beautiful planes I've seen have been made of wood rather than metal, but I'm still very partial to infills. And yes, there was as much gismosity with the woodies as there was with the metal planes. Larry's statement about "looking back to go forward" makes a lot of sense to me there - and not for the reason that us plane makers need to stick together ;-)
Even if you look at the new Lie-Nielsen and Veritas.....Actually no, not the Veritas so much....the Lie-Nielsen bevel up plane what is actually new here, design-wise? Absolutely nothing except for the materials used. It's basically the plane that Stanley made way back in 1926 - only done a heck of a lot better! I've separated the Veritas plane because it at least looks different and has one or two "fresh" ideas about it....though if you study them they're not really that fresh as such, but otherwise nicely done. I think that Veritas is an example of "looking back and going forward" to a small degree, whereas Lie-Nielsen is more like "looking back, staying there but producing excellent hand planes". And I do mean excellent. Both Veritas and Lie-Nielsen are at the top of their game when it comes to making planes and I love their stuff, but that doesn't mean that I need to forget the evolutionary path of how they got there. They know it themselves and that's why they produce the planes they do, out of genuine homage to what has gone before them.
Now someone mentioned that a woodworker does not live by wooden planes alone and that's a true statement. An even truer statement would be that a woodworker does not live by ONE PLANE alone....and I think that this is where the thinking is behind both the variable-pitch idea and the bevel up idea - getting one plane to do many jobs. This is all very good and fine but it usually comes at a cost of making that one plane not as effective as another, purpose-built, plane may be. It's a step down the Stanley #45 path, only that these new planes (LN & LV) do a very good job of planing wood.
Are they as good as everyone says they are? Well to my mind, not quite - but I think that's only because people are raving about them a little too much. They ARE good - actually they're great - but not necessarily because they're variable-pitch or BU, but because they're made really well, with nice thick cutters and tons of mass. I personally think that a lot of their appeal is because of the gismosity factor and because woodworkers feel good using them, not necessarily because they cut any better than standard planes. This is an important factor though and one that shouldn't be overlooked. If you're happy about something then you're bound to do better work than if you weren't happy. In my own testing however I've not found the BU's any better or any worse than the standard planes by Lie-Nielsen and Veritas. I've tried, but I just can't see it.
As I've not had any experience with the Bridge City VP plane I can't comment just yet.
Lastly, the comment about not making the same range of planes in metal than were available in wood is a bit of a moot point. Stanley could never match the range even if they tried, and neither could makers nowadays (for entirely different reasons, most notably market forces....there's just not enough buyers anymore). It is true that both metal and wooden planes have their own faults and idiosyncrasies though and one needs to take that into account when making planes. The maker needs to work with the strengths and try to lessen the weaknesses and in this regard Lie-Nielsen and Veritas do this very very well.
A number of people in this discussion have said, more or less, that's there nothing new under the sun, that a plane is just a structure for presenting a sharp blade to a piece of wood, and that all the technical solutions were already well known over 100 years ago.
Well, yes and no. Two points:
(1) L-N, veritas and the few other modern manufacturers have added considerably to the utility and useability of the metal hand plane. They're excellent marriages of form and function, finished to high standards, and affordable
(2) Holtey, S and S, Classic Planes, Iles, Philip Marcou and a few others that I've forgotten are pushing the envelope in two directions. First, they're showing that exemplary tradecraft and faultless engineering does matter. The three infills that I've made this summer are not to that standard, but they're close enough to prove to me that the 'make' matters. Second, they're showing that tools which function faultlessly can also look very cool.
I hear the 'shelf candy' comments, with a hint of a snear, and object. My own goal is unashamedly to make workshop jewellery! Why? I like working wood. It keeps me sane and chilled out. I can make things that people like, and I like that. Nice tools that work well make that work even more enjoyable. Believe me, using a plane that you've made yourself, that you like the look of, and that whispers through tough wood without pause, adds pleaure and satisfaction to any day!
Malcolm http://www.macpherson.co.nz
Malcolm wrote: (1) "L-N, veritas and the few other modern manufacturers have added considerably to the utility and useability of the metal hand plane. They're excellent marriages of form and function, finished to high standards, and affordable."They've added, yes. Considerably? Mmmm, maybe? There's no doubt they're excellently made tools and they're made from the very best materials but, as far as basic design principles go, both companies follow what has gone before them. Lie-Nielsen makes virtually exact copies of Stanley Bedrock planes (c1900), Stanley scraper planes (c1885), block planes (c1877), skew block rabbet planes (c1896), edge planes (c1905), side rabbet planes (c1896) and bevel up planes (c1926). I may have missed a couple of planes from their catalog but, design wise, the most recent Lie-Nielsen plane is still 80 years old! Where's the innovation there? Better casting materials, thicker blades made from more recent tool steels and top-notch machining. Apart from that the planes are the exact same designs. Tom says this himself, so I don't know why people would challenge it as being something new? As I've stated, they make great planes straight out of the box - but they're not newly designed planes.Veritas is a little different insofar as they do have their own design style, but the principles and ideas incorporated in the planes come form the past, not the future or the present.I have to check out Karl's site in regards to his low angle planes but I'd suspect, knowing Karl as I do, that he has borrowed from the past and improved the build quality of it. As to his standard planes they are replicas of the great British infills, but exceptionally made. Even his latest "cheap" smoother is actually the oldest plane in his range, design wise. It's based on a very early Spiers design that predates 1850.S + S, Classic planes, Iles and even Philip all use pre-existing designs - the first three following the British infills and Philip largely following the American designs. This doesn't detract, in any way, their worth or functionality or craftsmanship or anything else. It just states what is historically and patently obvious. I don't sneer at shelf candy one bit as most of what I make probably ends up on the shelves of collectors, but that shouldn't mean that I should turn a blind eye to those makers who have gone before me. These guys are my "heroes" and shall remain so. The new makers are also my heroes.Philip: Thank you. I have been here before but that was many years ago so I had to sign up again. I was drawn here yesterday by hundreds of hits to my website from here, so I wanted to find out what it was all about. I will do a profile but, as I only joined yesterday, I have not had the time as yet.Don't worry about the bright mild steel distorting at all, I've made hundreds of planes with this stuff without any i'll effects whatsoever. I know that one of the attributions of gauge plate is that it's harder wearing, but how many of the old Spiers, Norrises, Mathiesons, Slaters etc have you seen with completely worn out soles? :-)As to the Bridge City VP plane, I just think it would be quicker and easier to use 2 or 3 different pitch planes when you're working. It looks to me as if setting and adjusting the pitch would take too long? I've not used one though so I don't know for sure the practicalities of it. It would be good to try it out......And it is an exceptionally beautiful looking plane and I have no doubts about the build quality of it.I agree with the point that functional tools should also attempt to look cool, wherever possible - unless of course you are faithfully reproducing an existing tool that works well but isn't what some people may consider to be "highly or fashionably designed".Lastly, if you've not had the chance to look at PTAMPIA (Patented Transitional And Metallic Planes In America) then I suggest you take a look. The books are crammed full of new and innovative design ideas that have occurred in hand plane history over the past 150 years or so.
Edited 2/26/2006 9:42 pm ET by C.R. Miller
Cameron, what is this PTAMPIA- I mean is it a book that I can obtain or is it an internet thing?
Sounds like something I need to see, although I try not to ogle too many custom made planes in the hope that I develop my own style (and function).Philip Marcou
Philip,
That would be Roger Smith's two volume Patented Transitional and Metalic Planes in America.
Thanks Larry.
I see volume one on Amazon (used) at a cool $162.If yours is gathering dust, since you are a known Woodyphile, you may consider passing it or them on (;) to a worthy cause?Philip Marcou
Yeah, they're pretty pricey and not the sort of thing you'd find in your local library....unless you have a really cool library! They're fascinating books to look through however.
Philip,Those I have access to belong to my business partner. I doubt he wants to sell them. Roger Smith considered any plane with metal parts, other than the iron, a "transitional" so plenty of wooden planes show up in the books.The first ones I read were obtained through inter-library loan. It didn't take long for my local library to get them for me.
Well another three smoothers fresh out of the oven, so to speak. Much the same as the others, but have a moveable mouth plate and the sole is 8mm instead of 6mm-worth the extra effort I believe.Philip Marcou
Edited 3/28/2006 5:09 am by philip
Philip,
Superb work there! Very attractive planes. The wood on your knobs and totes is particularly nice.
Your adjustable mouth is rather ingenious. It took me a couple of minutes looking at the sole and the front top view to see what you had done there. Very elegant.
Again, very, very nice work. Looking forward to seeing your next efforts.
James
Beautiful looking planes, Philip. I agree with James, the woods look great with the brass and steel. The knurled screws for the mouth adjustment are a nice touch and I'm liking the Slater-like cap screws too.
Handplane Central
Thanks Cameron. Is Slater a maker? I haven't heard of him-can you give links etc if he is a maker?
Actually, with reference to that cap screw- I have made a tool that will form the end of a cap screw around a steel ball (bearing) so it is captured- I think it would look neat? I have never fancied the usual method of leaving it plain: one reason I have been given for that is that it stops any torque effect on the blade when tightening-but I don't see this with my version.Philip Marcou
Henry Slater was a contemporary of Norris and Spiers who worked in London in the late 1800's, early 1900's. As far as infills are concerned there's quite a number of Slater's around. Most of his smoothers are shaped like pic one (unfortunately this one's been redone rather badly so it's not original) but I particularly like his small smoother which can be seen in pic two. He also offered the "standard range" that other infill makers offered.I remember seeing a web page on Slater planes somewhere but I can't find it at the moment, sorry.As far as the screw end - I assume you mean the end that bears on the cap iron/blade? Any number of people will have differing opinions on how to go about it but, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that it provides sufficient pressure. Other than that it just gets down to aesthetics and personal preferences.The reference to Karl's planes is very much warranted, as he has both the name and the merit. Even amongst many of the contemporary planemakers, as Philip has attested to, Holtey's workmanship standards are the ones to strive for and his planes are at the very pinnacle of the craft. I'm not aware of many plane makers who would dispute this claim.
Handplane Central
C.R. and Philip
Here is an interesting link to the history of Henry Slater planes - still available on the Shepherd Tool website: http://www.shepherdtool.com/henry_slater_infill_planes.htm
Slater appears to have been somewhat the Stanley of his day - making planes for others, usually rebadged under their names - Moseley and Marples were often built by Slater.
A good mate of mine has a couple of Slater infill smoothers and a couple of shoulder planes. They are very nice indeed, as nice as the Mathieson infills I have handled. (But not as nice as those made by Philip!).
Regards from Perth
Derek
Thanks for the Slater link, Derek. There's still some good information on the Shepherd site if you can find it, isn't there.The page I was trying to find though had photographs of a dozen or so Slater planes but I still can't find it at the moment.
Handplane Central
CR
Try http://www.shepherdtool.com/antique_tools_store1.htm
Regards from Perth
Derek
Ah, that could be the one. Thanks Derek.
Handplane Central
Thanks James. I aim to make planes that work well and look handsome-in that order. I like crows as birds-lots of character and great at aerobatics, but the Condor and the Bateleur Eagle are supreme!Philip Marcou
If Holtey is the gold standard (and he probably is - go look at his reincarnated web page) then Philip is right there with him! Great workmanship, technical innovation, solid engineering. If these aren't the best of collectibles/users, then what is!
Malcolm
Thanks Malcolm. There is a looooooong way to go to reach Holtey standards, I feel. Also, he has the drop on us mere mortals because he has certain tools , machines to achieve certain things-look at the way knurled knobs are fitted to stems for example. Also the "integral rivets".
However, we will run the course.Philip Marcou
Firstly, welcome to Knots, and I hope Metod does not mind me chiming in here, but we are on opposite sides of the planet....Also welcome to the ever increasing flock of crows, most discerning creatures that they are.
To answer your questions: the logo is done by laser, and I have made only that type you saw, followed by three in progress now with adjustable mouth. I would have preferred to work with bms, but was advised against it by an engineer here, who said that it distorted -I think he assumed that I wanted to use black plate. However I have yet to see precision ground flat bms plate here.I am mulling over doing a cheaper steel and brass plane, screwed and pinned together, chunky , thick blade which could be either bevel up or down....I am searching for the best combination of function and appearance.To me gizzmossity means the inclusion of superfluous things into the design, things that do not aid function.
I am still searching for someone who has used that Bridgecity VP. I would like to think that this time the concept is a practical working one. Da Vinci made/designed things that failed then, but are now reality.
As for the bu versus the bd in performance-I think it is six of one and 1/2 a dozen of the other but if the chip breaker is included then I am biased towards the bevel up.
Thanks for your writings-how about some more details in your profile?Philip Marcou
from what i can discern from these photos, i believe that philip mostly is being modest with the self-depracting holtey comparison, though evidently there are certain elements that he cannot implement exactly as he would like without some of the machines holtey owns. whether these details affect use or would be noticeable by most of us is another matter entirely. clearly from the photos philip is a perfectionist and i dare say that his planes have certain aesthetic attributes that, imho, surpass the holtey 98 (that is, at least from what one can gather via web photos).
Unreal.
I wouldn't know what to do with those things being a framer , but i would love to put one of those tiger striped handles on the front of the truck.
Actually that gives me an idea. what would it cost for u to make up a hammer handle out of that tiger looking wood for my framing axe.
No joke.
Fishy, send me one small tiger and we'll go from there. I am keen on cats.Philip Marcou
Metod, no change in the basic methods- I leave the sides with a directional or matt finish, but do buff the edges and the ring under the knob and the edges of the handle base. I am keen to get my own surface grinder as I have seen what is meant by a matt mirror finish....
I have only used the Veritas blades so far-never seen the L.N. I plan to use my own stock of D2 in the future, as there is a firm near here which is up to speed on heat treatment of tool steels . As you know, I rate the quality of heat treatment more than the actual steel-they are all only as good as the heat treatment in the end.If I were to make lots of blades, I would want each batch to be certified by the firm doing the heat treatment and there would be evidence of the hardness test on each blade.
Your thinking? Priceless. Keep doing it.
Jeez Philip, we keep turning over interesting stones!
I told Cameron in my interview that I wasn't interested in making my own blades - but if you have a native Kiwi outfit that will certify hardness, I'll be in that as well!
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
i agree -- this and related knots, handtool threads over the past few months have been, imo, by far the best hand-tool related content i have seen on the web in the year and a half or so that i have been reading these boards. thanks to all involved for educating the rest of us. (on the other hand, too bad that over the past 2 years fww magazine has devolved into superficial garbage).
> Sawmillcreek forum <
Can you point us to that comment please?
Malcolm
Hi Malcolm
I suspect that you only read and post on Knots (which I must admit to re-discovering only because Philip directed me here - until now I have just been kibbitzing over your shoulder). There are a few other fine and worthy woodworking forums to which I contribute, so I posted the same message on these as well. Each forum has its own personality, and it is interesting the form the responses take.
These forums are: Wood Central - http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/handtools.pl?index
Sawmill Creek - http://sawmillcreek.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4
Woodnet - http://www.forums.woodnet.net/ubbthreads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=handtools
(Australian) Woodwork Forums - http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/
The threads previewing Philip's smoother can be found, respectively, at:
http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/handtools.pl?noframes;read=87230
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?p=333081#post333081
http://www.forums.woodnet.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2313145&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=
http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showthread.php?t=30137
I do not as yet have my own website. Many (not all) of my plane reviews can be found on the wkfinetools.com website at http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/index.asp
There are also others and articles at http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl (scroll down).
These, and much more, will eventually be posted on a website I am slowly putting together at wkfinetools.com
I hope you find this interesting.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Thanks Derek
Knots is about all I can handle! Saved your links to a Word page and sat it on my desktop. I'll watch for the review.
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Hi Metod
Thanks for the kind words.
The bed angle of bevel up planes is the next area for development in my opinion. We have not nearly nailed the design of this plane format. At present the bed of the current LV and LN versions is 12 degrees. This is partly a carry-over from Stanley's original #164 and #62. The other reason it is used is because it permits low cutting angle (37 degrees) planing, which is important for end grain, such as on a shooting board. However, once we move to dedicated smoothers, such as the LV BUS, the Holtey #98, and Philip Marcow's BU smoother (it should get a name/number?), then there is no longer the need to include the low angle option. A higher bed angle is not only going to mean one can grind lower bevel angles on the irons, which should increase the "sharpness" (or, rather, ability of the edge to penetrate the wood surface), but it should also increase the clearance angle, and this also is expected to facilitate a better wear angle on the blade.
I've been told that the minimum clearance angle is a round 7 degrees. The bevel up planes have 12 degrees (so the iron could just cope with a 5 degree backbevel), while a bevel down iron typically has 45 degrees. I do find that my BD blades outlast my BU blades. ON the other hand, there are many advantages to the BU planes, so this area warrants closer inspection.
Philip has chosen 15 degrees for his bed. I have yet to ask him why he arrived at this number. Personally, I would have chosen 20 degrees (the Holtey #98 uses 22.5 degrees) since most of the timber I work with is hard and interlocked Australian, and I typically use 62 degrees for a cutting angle. (frankly, for more softwoods and straight-grained timber, a 45 degree cutting angle is sufficient - see my review of the LV BUS).
Finally to answer your question! I do intend to use the LV BUS when I evaluate Philip's plane. Not only is this the finest BU plane I have used to date, but it uses the same blade. Keep in mind that the review is only partly performance orientated, since most buyers have art or craftsmanship, or both, in the sights.
As it happens, I have been planning a little research of my own. I want to construct a couple of inserts for my LV BUS that increase the bed angle to 15 and 20 degrees. This is ongoing, so don't expect the article for a few months yet.
I have another along similar lines, this one involving the tote angle and its relationship to bench (i.e. planing) height. So far my observation is that the LV totes were designed with modern (i.e. high) benches in mind. The Stanley (and LN) were designed for an earlier era of lower, now traditional, bench heights. Philip's tote (which I have not measured) is more along the lines of the Stanley.
More later.
Regards from Perth
Derek
> traditional' tote geometry < has interested me recently as well.
There's often an assumption in this business that the way we do things is somehow the result of centuries of trial and error, and can't be improved. Saw, plane and other hand-tool 'handles' are a case in point. Hands are flexible and adaptable tool-holders, and fine differences in the shape of held objects are pretty irrlevant, in my opinion (and experience).
However, there are opportunities to think about the function of a tote or handle, which is to efficiently direct force to a cutting edge. Does a tote need to be aligned normal (ie at right angles) to the plane sole? Does it need to be symmetrical? I believe No - I like a sculpted tote that includes finger grips on the side opposite the palm). Should the tote be aligned normal to the line of thrust? Probably yes. And so on.
I'm fabricating a run of 'unhandled' planes, and these questions are exercising my little brain. Also, what about grip!? Seems to me that a much more productive question is how best to grip a tool. Shiny, smooth, rectangular shapes are hard to grip, especially if heavy. That's one reason why Krenov's band-saw-shaped planes are so alluring - they're sort of organic.
Malcolm
"Should the tote be aligned normal to the line of thrust? Probably yes. And so on.
I'm fabricating a run of 'unhandled' planes, and these questions are exercising my little brain. "
Malcolm
That is the very issue I raised in my recent post:
http://forums.taunton.com/fw-tools/messages/?topfolder=3&redirCnt=1
Regards from Perth
Derek
So waddaya think? Instructive to look at where power tools have their handles, and how they orient them? Vertical at rear, horizontal at the front, sometimes. Note also the Asian practice (adopted by HNT Gordon) of driving a plane with a horizontal bar parallel to the sole. Might be difficult to do a horizontal front end that looks OK though!
Malcolm
Malcom,
I suspect that a lot of handle design had as much to do with production technology as refining the design. Look at how simple it would be to produce a tote and front knob for a Stanley bench plane once you have the jigs.
I was doing a lot of work on a schuting board the other day. I dont own a mitre plane so was using a stanley #5 as is my want.
After treating the blisters raised at the back of my palm I too started to look at what would be the best handle. My only idea for the mitre plane so far would look like the shape a french polish rubber seems to get after an hour - sort of flattened triangle that bulges up into the web of the thumb. The challenge is to do that in production without plastic injection moulding.
Dave
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled