I have seen many posts here about the use of a shoulder plane. I would like to once again ask the question does anyone use a “shoulder” plane to pare down the cheeks of the tenon to get the correct thickness. I would think that a low angle blade would be ideal to go across grain on the cheek and trim its thickness. A second part of my question… has anyone used the Anant bull nose plane. It seems that it would work well for this application
Thanks.
Replies
Fitting tenons is exactly what they were made for. I've got the Clifton 410, which is outstanding for shorter tenons, and the LN low angle rabbet plane for longer tenons. It makes fitting a whole lot easier, cause you can over cut your tenons by a wee bit, and trim them to fit perfectly very quickly.
Jeff
tfk3160
shoulder plane changed my life. Suddenly making things fit got easier. The thing about a shoulder plane is that the blade does not fit ina mouth, so it cuts all the way to the side of the plane (slightly beyond) so that you will be trimming all the way up to the side of the cheek. Sorry if thats not a good description. bull nose probably work too, but shoulder plane more stable.
Thank you could you tell me what kind of shoulder plane you use e.g. Clifton, LN, Veritas.
Thanks
tfk3160
I have the Lee Valley medium shoulder plane. If I could afford the Lie-Lielsen, I would probably have gotten it, but I am not talented enough to know the difference. the Lee Vlalley works for me, however if I was mainly getting it for large tenons, I would get the large size. My tenons are usually small. The finger hole in the body is handy.
What don't you like about your LV shoulder planes that makes you pine for the LN?(Robin, cover your eyes)
Edited 1/24/2006 6:08 pm ET by Spike2
Spike2
purely envy. Like I said, I am not talented enough to think my work woudl significantly improve with the L-N, but I have a few other L-N tools, and can appreciate the quality of the tool in itself. Is it worth the difference in cost? Probably not for me. Maybe for others.
I have no complaints about the L-V. Glad to have it.
Well said, and aren't we fortunate to have companies and products of this quality to deal with? Twenty or thirty years ago we would be having to deal with what Stanley had sunk to. The main reason that woodworking with handtools is growing is the availability of decent handtools again. I know some of you cherish vintage tools, but as with every collectible today, unreasonably high prices are being driven by greedy dealers, not intrinsic value. Ok, I'm done now.
<<Well said, and aren't we fortunate to have companies and products of this quality to deal with? >> I couldn't agree more; companies like LN and LV, amongst others, have put quality hand tools back on the radar and in the hands of woodworkers.<< I know some of you cherish vintage tools, but as with every collectible today, unreasonably high prices are being driven by greedy dealers, not intrinsic value.>> To a degree, but I suspect that user/collector demand also has a significant influence on the price of vintage tools. Places like eBay seem to do a pretty good job of gauging the current "real" value of a particular tool in a given state of preservation.
I have taken a different approach and use an old Stanley router plane that I got from my father-in-law (belonged tohis grandfather...). It does a much better job of ensuring the cheeks are parallel to the face of the board than a shoulder plane ever could.
Try one and you'll be hooked.
Marty (waiting for the shoulder plane supporters to commence their squealing...)
Yes, you can use the shoulder plane to trim the cheeks, because the shoulder plane excels at both cross and end grain cuts. I stepped up to a larger shoulder plane when I discovered the medium one I had wasn't up to the task of trimming cheeks wider than 3/4" as cleanly as the larger model.
Another way to do the cheeks without a shoulder plane is with a block plane, then paring off the part that the iron misses with a chisel. It will take longer, but if there's not a lot of material to remove, it shouldn't be bad.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I use a shoulder plane (LN) for this a lot, but I often use a rabbet plane a lot - it's easier to adjust for depth of cut (nice if you have a ways to go to the final fit) and easier to hold since it is handled, where a shoulder plane is not. If you are looking to buy a new plane, you might consider a rabbet plane if you don't already have one -- it is a bit more versitile, IMHO.
Mike Hennessy
Pittsburgh, PA
Lie Nielsen has a nice small block rabbet plane that I have found handy for tenon cheeks. It's low angle and the cuts are not real smooth cross-grain, but it works fine.
For shoulder cuts I like the Clifton 410 or the big LN shoulder rabbett.
David C.
I like this LN plane for this job and many others. It's pricey but versatile. One side is removable for rabetting. That is not necessarily ideal for rabetting in both directions but the iron is bedded at a low angle, mitigating that issue. The low angle cutter is nice for many other operations too. The plane also has a fence which is often helpful.
http://www.woodcraft.com/family.aspx?FamilyID=1877
Tenon joints are why I own shoulder planes. The I rough cut on power tools or hand saws and finish with shoulder planes. The quality of my joinery increased exponentially. I am careful of thicknessing the tenons, two passes on one side then two on the other side. Then one pass on each side until I get a snug, not tight, fit. Watching that they stay centered.
Best of luck.
Will Graham
I think shoulder planes were developed for the very wide shoulders found on architectural mill work (doors, wainscot paneling and the like).
There's no question that they are unneccessary, or possibly irrelevant for furniture sized work. Typical furniture sized stiles should pose no special problem.
So I guess my question would be what is one doing wrong that precipitates the need for a "correction" tool? Keep in mind that for many frame and panel applications the distance between shoulders is fairly critical. So "cleaning up shoulders" can cause unintended problems down the line.
As far as tenon cheeks are concerned, shoulder planes will cut them, but so will a sharp wide chisel. But the goal should be to saw then correctly the first time and deal with the mistakes we all make as such. Leaving the line and then planing down to it just seems like capitulation. Its a plan for failure.
My advice is to skip the shoulder plane and shoot for good joinery. The challenge we all face is resisting the manufacturers' and retailers' claims about the essential nature of the tools they sell. I think they do it honestly enough. In their attempts to describe functionality, they often imply essentiality. The shoulder plane is an excellent example of this.
So if you have one, that's great. Try to avoid using it, but know that when you do, it will do a great job. If you don't have one, resist the urge to buy. If you are having problems with yoru joinery, look elsewhere for solutions first.
Adam
P.S. I know this wasn't exactly the advice you were looking for. But lots of other people interested in this subject do. I felt this side of the issue needed to be aired and I do feel much better now thank you!
You think using a shoulder plane is "capitulation"??Did you have a bad experience with a shoulder plane to cause such negative feelings? The shoulder plane is pretty much a "must have" for a furniture maker. I'm amazed at your attitude that using a shoulder plane indicates a lack of expertise! My TS isn't accurate to a few thousandths so cutting a tenon as accurately as needed isn't gonna happen except by luck. Most cut tenons a bit larger than the mortise and then adjust the fit with a shoulder plane.Edited 1/30/2006 1:15 pm ET by Spike2
Edited 1/30/2006 1:17 pm ET by Spike2
I agree, except you may be underestimating the accuracy of your saw. It's a lot easier to cut the mortice and get the tenon to fit than trying to make the mortice match. With a marking gauge to determine where the mortice will be and cutting the tenons on a tablesaw, it's pretty easy to be accurate with the saw set up properly. However, if the tenon is a little fat, a shoulder plane makes quick work of thinning it down a little.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Thanks for reading my post. Yeah, you've got my meaning right. I think its a bad idea to routinely cut any joint large and then pare it down ( I can think of a few exceptions where its really faster to do so). I try to shoot for winners, then deal with my mistakes as they come. Its a fundamental and philosophical difference. Not to be disrespectful, but my advice to you might be if you find your TS can't produce the accuracy you need, spend your time and money on a good hand saw and do it that way, skipping the shoulder plane altogether.If you are still with me, I guess the larger point is that at very least, the use of a shoulder plane, or the requirement for a shoulder plane is entirely subjective. We none of us need it because it alone can do the job efficiently. We need it because of the choices we have made. I'm challenging the validity of those choices. I could probably say the same thing about block planes. They are convenient, but mission-less tools.Adam
I think perhaps you have more skill than you give yourself credit for. Sawing every cheek for an ideal fit to every hand cut mortise is no mean feat.
When I hand chop mortises to lines cut with a marking knife etc. they often vary ever so slightly in width. If I'm looking for a good fit on each and every M&T, paring each tenon a bit - fettling that joint - is a quick and sure way of getting the snug friction fit for every one without having to separately mark the width of each tenon before cutting. Further, saws of any sort - dado set on the TS, BS, or a backsaw - will typically leave some saw marks on the tenon surface. Planing will remove these marks and provide for better gluing as the surface contact is better between the mortise walls and the smooth planed tenon cheeks. A marginal difference perhaps, but significant enough to be recognized by at least one expert as desirable to the extent possible:
"In spite of a common workshop myth, good adhesion does require smooth surfaces, so lets not kid ourselves that these relatively rough surfaces are a good thing. Consider also that the mortise mates with a tenon whose flanks are likely to bear saw marks. It seems evident to me that mortise and tenon joints usually survive because the available gluing area is probably greater than they really need."
http://www.amgron.clara.net/mortise/mortisefinish/mortisefinish.htm
In sum, you may call it "fixing" the joint. I just call it part of "making" the joint.
At the end of the day, a great woodworker, with all the time in the world, might be able to make a beautiful piece of furniture with only a single 1/2" chisel. In other words, every other tool in the shop could be called superfluous. But we all know that other tools help us get to, if not a better result, at least a faster one. The result is the point, not the tools one uses to get there. Whatever works for each woodworker is the right answer.
"Sawing every cheek for an ideal fit to every hand cut mortise is no mean feat."I've been doing a lot of this lately and its really not that big a deal. I really don't want to be argumentative, but I just hate the way this sounds (that the solution is to buy another tool). Frankly, it sounds like advertising copy. Its consumerism run amuck. You really don't need all these specialty tools to do good work. This just isn't that hard to do. Shoulder planes have only been around for the last 150 years or so. What do you think people did before that?I love Jeff Gorman. He's inspired me and taught me many many things for which I am grateful. I respectfully disagree with the statement you've quoted. I wonder if he even still agrees with it. PVA requires high bondline pressure to achieve bond strength. The manufacturer recommends 150-250psi based on species. Its probably impossible to achieve this pressure in any M&T joint. Hide glue tends to extrude out of tight joints. It can, however bridge small gaps. In fact, like epoxy, it works better when a thin bond line is maintained. So in aircraft structural bonds, a thin scrim or mesh is placed between parts to maintain their seperation- and keep the glue in the joint. Doesn't that sound a lot like the rough sawn surface? They were right back then about rough surfaces. They may not have known why it was good, but they knew it worked because they had hundreds of years of experience passed down within the English Guild system's oral tradition. Jeff shouldn't have dismissed that so quickly.One reason why my tenon joints are successful may be that I use a coarse hand saw. Those high spots can easily be compressed in the joint Otherwise, I still have a tight joint. Planing tenons may be the problem, not the solution. As you can tell, I find this subject interesting on many levels. I know some of this is religion based. I don't want to convince anyone they are wrong or sway them to "my side". I just think this deserves more thought. There are essential tools for certain kinds of work. Jeff Heath may need this tool if he's doing factory work, though all factories would try to eliminate operations like this. I just don't think you should plan to use this tool for every tenon. The other angle we should mention, is that its really easy to fix a M&T joint. I can't think of any instance where a joint would be "unfixable". So we should go for it! Saw right to the line and see what happens.Adam
P.S. I liked Jeff H's mention about me living in a fantasy world! He's right! I like to joke that I'm a cross dresser because I periodically dress-up in period clothes! Someday I may even get a wig! I think I'll go put on the funny hat and cut some mortises! You guys won't believe what I'm working on!
Thanks, Adam. What's the fun of chewing the woodworking fat if we all don't have different opinions now and then, eh?
"What do you think people did before that?" I think they used a paring chisel.
As for consumerism, guilty as charged. I don't need much of a reason to want a tool I think may be helpful or fun to use. I wheel marking gauge isn't exactly necessary. I could probably do most of my planing from jointing to smoothing with my 5 alone. I could make due with about a tenth of chisels and carving tools I have - I'm a chisel addict - I can never pass up a nice old one. I definitely don't need half the Disstons, Atkins, etc. I have, but again, they were too cheap and attractive with the siren calls of those beautiful handles, etched logos, medallions, and don't get me started on the nibs. So you're absolutely right. I like tools and have fun using them, whether I need them or not. With the shoulder plane, whan I need it, I'm very glad to have it.
The hide glue thing is interesting. I'm not convinced the glue thing is a big deal, I was just trying to suggest a way that the planing might make the bond even better. I like my LV Cabinetmakers 2002; it has very good minor gap filing ability in my experience.
Anyway, I enjoyed your recent articles in Popular WW. The mysteries stuff was cool. I really think Chris and you all are doing a great job with PWW. It fits my interests and intermediate level very well. By the way, do you agree with Chris that the 40 was not likely intended to scrub the face of boards for quick thicknessing? In my experience, the 40 does a real good job of this "extra coarse" work, before you get to the 5 in the process.
By 40, I assume you mean a #40 scrub plane. If it wasn't made for removing a lot of material in the thicknessing/flattening of boards, what was it made for?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I agree, but in a recent PWW article, if I understood him correctly, Chris Schwartz suggests in passing that he thinks the 40 was just for removing wood from the edges and not the face of boards. But now I'm wondering if I dreamed it? I don't have the mag with me at eh moment, but I'll check tomorrow and report back.
Was he suggesting that the edges get knocked down and a smoother used for the rest? Sounds like a good way to spend most of the day planing one board, as well as sharpening the iron every 15 minutes. Everything I have read says a scrub plane is for hogging away a lot of material in a short time, then smoothing the ridges.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Okay, I pulled out the Feb. issue of PWW. In his article "Coarse, Medium, and Fine" which describes how to use your hand tools in combination with your powertools in stock prep and throughout your woork, he begins by talking about the use of foreplanes - he includes the 5 & 6. He talks about how the middling length is a good thing in that it spans more of the board. In a parenthetical he adds:
"(Why are scrub planes so short then? I think these 10"-long tools were used more for hogging wood off edges or localized work -- but that's another story.)"
I found it a rather puzzling teaser that didn't fit with the article's thesis: Use the right tool for the job, and the work is done more quickly and efficiently; as in: don't try to remove cup with your smoother or you will be there all day, etc. In that vein, I would think the scrub is much more efficient than a fore plane if you need to take a quarter inch off the face of a board.
A scrub plane isn't much shorter than a smoother, either. Patrick's B&G section talks about the #40 and #40 1/2 and how they're japanned on the cheeks of the sole because there's a lot of sweating going on when using one of them and that they look terrible after a lot of use. A lot of use doesn't sound like just doing the edges, to me. Also, the Working With Handplanes book from the New Best of Fime WoodWorking talks about them, too. There's even a cover photo of a board being scrubbed across its width. I just bought one on ebay and, while I don't know that it'll get a lot of use, I'm cleaning it up so I can put it into shape so it's as useful as it would be normally.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Not to add too much fuel to the fire, but I suggest you use Rob Cosman's Rough to Ready video as a counter-argument.
Rob goes through the processes of surfacing rough sawn boards, and sure enough, he reaches for a scrub plane first. It's small size allows it to work localized areas. Then you go to your next level planes to straighten.
That said, a longer scrub plane wouldn't be all that bad. And Chris Shwartz' description of how he sets up his fore/jack plane is basically like a bigger scrub. The added weight certainly helps when you're hogging off a lot of material, and you can work longer strokes, to get things down quicker. As far as working the edges, oh yeah, the scrub plane really does that well. you can get 1/4" off the edge of a board in 3 passes or so.
But- I have been reading Adam's articles in PopWood, and actually agree with a lot of his statements regarding period furnituremakers. I think they worked a lot with what they had, and got very passable results. 11/16" or 3/4" or 13/16" whatever worked with the boards at hand. The weren't fools back then, nor did they work longer hor harder just because they wanted to. It's very comparable to the economies of running a modern shop. You design around what you can get easily.The older I get, the better I was....
All,
Charles Hummel, in his book on the Dominy family of craftsmen, references several early writers on the naming and usage of the foreplane. One authority claims that the tool called jack plane by the house carpenter, is called foreplane by the joiners. Others, such as Mercer, use the two terms interchangeably. The wooden foreplane of the 18th century was about 15" long. All agree that the fore plane gets its name from the fact that it is used beFORE the try or smoothing planes, in surfacing rough or irregular stock. Stanley's jack plane is a lineal descendant of these tools.
Early English and American authorities do not use the term scrub plane, and the tool does not seem to have seen wide usage in the English woodworking tradition. It seems to me that the short scrub plane is most likely from the continental European tradition. The older wooden one that I have, and others I've seen, have the "horn" tote at the front of the stock, that is typical of German or northern European planes. Stanley's scrub plane would seem to have derived from this type.
As to why the scrub plane is so much shorter (and often narrower) than the fore (or jack) plane, I don't think the answer lies in their being used for different surfaces of the same board. More likely it's similar to the reason why oriental saws are made to cut backwards from western ones--because "we've always done it this way".
Regards,
Ray Pine
I may have information on the scrub is for hogging off the width of a board.This Quote from stanleys 1926 catalogue. "Scrub Planes For planing down to a rough dimension any board that is to wide to conveniently rip with a hand saw, an operation called hogging.This is made possible by reason of the shape of the extra heavy cutter the cutting edge of which is round instead of square. Handle and Knob of beech." That quote explains alot.But then there is the 1909 catalogue "The Stanley improved scrub planes Nos. 40 and 401/2are especiallyadapted for roughing down work before using a jack plane" Could be that they were intended for many uses. I suspect that older pre mettalic body scrubs were just small jacks intended for use on very hard woods, a narrow blade being easy to push. Tools seem to evolve to meet the needs of the user. At least mine do . Good luck to you.
Adam
A couple of thoughts and corrections! First of all, I never stated you lived in a fantasy world, although I honestly wished sometimes that I did. I simply stated that in a fantasy world, with a fantasy shop, mistakes never occur, and all cuts are perfect.
The good folks reading and participating here bring different skill levels here. We all carry different levels of ability to the workbench with us, whether it be every day, as for myself, or once or twice a week, as for many.
Let's say, for example, that you are building a piece of furniture with many parts, and many M & T joints. Let's just say, for our example, that you had 2 extra fine ales the night before, and on your first sawcut of the new day, you didn't quite dissect that line the way you wanted to, and now your tenon is loose. What do you do? Throw it in the stove? Probably not. You would probably glue on a small shim, let it dry, and trim it to fit. OK, great! What tool will you use to trim it. A file? A card scraper? The kerf of your handsaw is wider than than the thin amount required to be removed, so that is out! Hey, how about reaching for that never used shoulder plane. A couple of swipes, and you're back in business, and with a grin, remembering that nasty looking young lady that you almost took out to breakfast........ Oh, sorry, off track there!
Also, btw, I work in a factory of 1. Me.
A new and upcoming woodworker is never going to achieve the level you preach about without winding down that long road called "5000 M & T Lane", and he/she needs to be able to quickly dissolve problems along the way. If the professional woodworkers who contribute here in helping out the newer people to the craft get all high and mighty about perfection, and all other levels of work should be considered unacceptable, then where will we be? I guess there would be no reason to turn the lights on in the shop anymore.
Just a thought or two. I'm curious how you feel about that.
Jeff
Gentlemen, a couple of thoughts for you from England.
I have been working with wood since god was a boy.........The novelty of cutting tennons with a saw and fettling them up with planes various wore off eons ago. Gentlemen, as a one man workshop time is money and that is why we have ..... Taraa.... The router....
You guys all have routers don't you? Invert it in a table, make a sledge that runs square to your fence. Set up the tool height and adjust distance from fence..... Run timber over cutter and then flip it over. Result all shoulders the same size and square, no twisted tennons and if set up right when all is adjusted so that the first one fits, all the others fit....
Keep the shoulder/bullnose there is always a need but time to move forwards guys....
Regards
Martin
Good advice....... I've moved on.
Jeff
And the mortises..........?
Adam:
I'm a rank amateur hobbyist but enjoyed your comments. I think we need to rethink received wisdom from time to time.
I learned to cut to the proud side. But as time has passed I'm wondering if I'm now cutting to the produ side of the proud side. Lack of confidence in my skills has got me on a slippery slope.
It takes a new perspective like yours to try a new approach. And I think psychologically it may actually help my confidence to dare to be better.
It takes a new perspective like yours to try a new approach. And I think psychologically it may actually help my confidence to dare to be better.Dear Mom,You don't have to keep doing this- masquerading as a woodworker and writing complimentary things. I know there aren't a lot of people who work the way I do, but its really not discouraging or lonely. Sooner or later someone, a REAL someone, really will be encouraged by something I write. They will push aside their router table or power jointer and just really have fun working wood the simple old fashioned way. I love you, Mom.Your loving son,Adam
P.S. the "dare to be better" phrase was a little much don't ya think? And Mom, please stop writing letters to the editor about my articles.
Adam I'll need further payment. You paid me once to be your shill. Playing the straight man for your posts costs extra.
TERRIFIC! Thanks for the chuckle!
I really did appreciate your post, by the way. I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to be very silly!
Adam
One of the best pieces I ever made was about 10 years ago. It was a 15 drawer chest, and I cut all of the primary wood from two large pieces of philipines cedar. All of the drawer fronts from the same piece, which was a real layout challenge.
I'm still proud of getting to the stage with this piece of using a 5mm clearance to saw and plane both sides of a cut to a finished standard irrespective of length, but well aware that professionals would use tighter tolerances - actually they would probably use a table saw and lose most of the space in the wider kerf.
I'm a long way from sawing tennons or dovetails to a sawn only fit - maybe one day, but untill then what I'm looking for is a carriage rebate plane to help with wider tennons. They just look so cool.
dave
Ah yes the mortises...... Well.... I made a jig that is not dissimilar to others that you will find in the literature. There is a vertical face and at right angles to it on top, a flat surface.
The router sits on the flat surface on top of the jig, the fence runs along the back of it. The two fence bars run up against adjustable stops at each end of the travel. Length of mortise is thus constrained.
The timber is clamped against the vertical face of the jig with an over centre clamp, with face to be morticed flush up and below the router base. Router is set above the timber and depth of cut determined. A stop can be affixed to the jig so that mortises at the ends of a section will always be in exactly the same place. Can do you a picture of the jig on a later post if required.
Here is the contentious bit..... When making stopped/blind mortises, time was I would square off the mortises to match the square tennons. Nowadays I tend not to. There is really is no need to generate that tiny extra surface area with modern adhesives being as good as they are (your own Titebond for example) . Of course through mortises are a different matter.
All the best
Martin
Martin, old chap---- and all.
Somehow I missed this thread, till now, which is a pity as I tend to lean towards Adam's direction-but then I am a fulltimer. On the other hand, having learned hand work before machine woowdwork, I can see where all those promoting the shoulder plane are coming from-when you need one you need one-and they are nice things anyway(;)
I think you are preaching to the converted when it comes to router made tenons and even mortices. Like you I moved forward (still look for ways to keep on doing that).But I like to use my spindle to cut tenons-so I can cut lots of them fitting right, after the test piece has been done.
However, if one just has a few tenons to do, and if they are angled ones, setting up a router or a spindle arrangement is not good time-wise, so one cuts them by hand-for sure there will be a need to clean a bit here and there, even for the most proficient fanatic equipped with the latest LieNielsen tenonsaw. That is when one whips out the beloved Record#073 or similar ....Philip Marcou
Phillip, you are of course dead right.....
There will always be times when the shoulder/bullnose is required and is the only tool for the job....
Regards
Martin
Martin
There will always be times when the shoulder/bullnose is required and is the only tool for the job....
This is exactly the point that I was trying to make with Adam. Like you, I cut my mortises with a router and a very similar setup that you described with stops. I find it invaluable for repetitive mortices.
And, I'm not an advocate for doing extra work. I try very hard to not have to reach for the shoulder plane. But, on a set of chairs with 132 M & T joints, I find myself never not once able to complete them all without reaching for the shoulder plane at least a dozen times. I'm sure glad it's there.
Adam is a very good writer, and an excellent source of information here, and I hope that my post didn't upset him to not respond, as I haven't heard back from him in a week. I am hoping that his skin is thicker than that, as all can benefit from what he has to say here.
Jeff
Of course we have routers - I have six of them myself, I believe,...
But I don't do woodworking for money. I have a passion for woodworking and boatbuilding and a love for it that will never go away but there are other ways to earn money more easily, imo,...
So you can understand that the reason that I use hand tools instead of a router is so that I can listen to music, listen to books on tape, talk to my dogs, mentally solve most of the world's problems, etc, while I am working and not be distracted by some loud, angry, potentially dangerous, chip spewing, 'lectron-munching demon.
But there are times when somedody persuades me to making picture frames, or something, when I will use the router table, just to 'get 'er done,' when the magic of woodworking has been completely eliminated by the expectations of someone else that I will provide a deliverable within a timeframe.
Have a good day, Ed
I am a hobbyist as well and try to use my whining, screaming, spinning, wood-gobbling router as little as possible.
For just a couple of M & T joints I cut 'n chop them by hand. If I have a bunch to do I tablesaw the tenon shoulders, bandsaw the cheeks and trim with shoulder planes (if needed), and for mortices I use the cheap, junky hollow chisel mortising attachment that came with my Jet drillpress. The chisels were sharp as ball bearings out of the box, but a few minutes with a diamond hone and they work very well.
I think the needs of production shops and the needs of hobbyists will always be different.
David C.
Adam
I hear what you are saying, and in a fantasy world, with fantasy skills, you are absolutely correct. Without getting into all the nit picky details, your advice of avoiding the boo boo in the first place is great, but not very practical for this forum.
For example, one of the chairs that I build frequently for customers is a slat backed, mission style chair. It has 6 slats per chair back. 22 M & T joints per chair. Obviously, when making a set, I batch cut everything. While the desire for perfection is all well and good, it doesn't exist in my world. A couple of swipes on a tenon that is tight, and the problem is solved. Without either my Clifton 410 or my low angle rabbeting plane, I'd have to resort to a rasp, not exactly the tool of choice for fitting tenons that are a wee bit snug.
From a production stand point of view, having 2 tools that cost less than $350 total, and save a boat load of time and aggrevation, are priceless, compared to the price of one chair at over $1000.00 a copy.
I have personally been in the shop of a couple of outstanding furniture makers, and shoulder planes were used frequently.
We should all work to achieve perfection, but having the ability to repair flaws in our joinery, as well as repair the occasional mess up without starting over, or compromising the quality of the piece being built, is vital.
Just my .02. BTW, nice articles in the last PW.
Jeff
Jeff,
I'm with you concerning the fine-tuning of joints issue. Although not a professional woodworker, I'm retired and spend approximately 30 hours a week in my shop making all sorts of furniture. Everything from chairs, tables and cabinets to jewelry boxes. The mortise and tenon joints are usually cut with machines (Delta mortiser and Delta tenoning jig on my Unisaw) and I find that my router plane works extremely well for those joints - usually about 60% - that need a bit of touching up. Despite my attempts to joint and plane as accurately as possible, the use of dimensionally stable wood, setting up my mortiser and tenoning jig as accurately as possible... as mentioned above, I have to fine-tune nearly half the joints.
Is that because I'm an inferior woodworker? I think not, instead, I think that's the reality of working with wood.
Thanks for the gentlemanly response you had provided. It's great hearing from someone who's obviously been there and done that.
Marty
Adam,
These remarks are becoming downright inflammatory. You'll have College of the Redwoods grads protesting outside your house by morning. I shelled out the money for the Lie-Nielsen large shoulder plane and have found it a very useful tool. But I think you are dead-on to say that its intended use should be reserved for clean-up. For getting perfectly fit tenons I have found that a micrometer, a bandsaw and a few shims of scrap paper produce the most reliable adjustments in tenon thickness without compromising squareness. It is in making square and parellel the shoulders that my Lie-Nielsen has been the greatest performer. The use of the shoulder plane is time-consuming and delicate, but for those of us whose shops are limited to mediocre machinery that gets us only 90% toward a finished joint, mastering finishing tools such as block and shoulder planes is a very economical way to produce 100% quality joints.
I don't know of anyone who has enough time to complete one project that they can avoid trying to get it done so they can move on to the next step. If a cheek or shoulder is cut quickly, it won't necessarily be perfect but a couple of passes with a shoulder plane can get it to where it needs to be. The chance of every shoulder or cheek being perfectly square or parallel to the face, respectively, is low. If it is perfect, kudos to the person cutting them but in a production shop where hand work is not uncommon, getting the job done well is still going to take a back seat to getting it done fast. I think it's more for production shops that shoulder planes were originally made.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I didn't understand your post. I saw tenons out all the time. Most of the time they are fine. Sometimes I screw up and I have to fix them. Why would I plan to hand fettle every joint? Most of the time I'm fine. I'm not particularly proficient. Sawing to a line is a very basic skill. If you can't saw to a line, you're screwed, but not just here.I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I hear people say you should leave the line when you saw dts then pare to every line. I see this as similarly nuts. Its a good tool if you need to fix stuff. No doubt. But do you want to fix every joint?Adam
You have to understand that not everyone "saws tenons all the time". Not everyone here does this professionally, nor do we all have the time we would like to devote to this. I never said anything about fixing every joint. I was taught and have always been told to cut to the line and on the ones that miss by a little bit, pare or plane it off afterward. Also, if I am to miss the line, I should miss on the waste side so I'm not removing what should remain. If I did this all day, every day, I might be as good as you."If you can't saw to a line, you're screwed, but not just here." Care to explain this, or am I reading something into you telling me that I'm generally screwed?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Apparently poster Adam is a contributor to Popular Woodworking magazine. I'm sure the folks here at FWW magazine don't mind the occasional visitor from the competition.
With all due respect to him, I find his point of view rather off-center, implying that if you simply don't make any mistakes you don't need to worry about adjusting the fit of (mortice and tenon) joints, nor the tools that make that adjusting more easily possible. At his level that may be feasible, but for the lowly masses of us that do have variances in the course of our work, the use of a few extraneous tools should be excuseable.
I greatly admire the purist approach to the craft of woodworking, whatever the individual's motivation and goals may be in the process. The implication that anything less (or should I say "more", as in "more tools") is somehow not worthy bothers me. I appreciate the instruction and understand the perspective, but the attitude was unwelcome.
Edited 1/30/2006 9:08 pm ET by Vicejaws
I have a Stanley 92. I spent about 20 minutes tuning it and it works fine for me.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled