Replies

1. 
   gb93433 | Mar 21, 2006 05:26pm | #1

   Sometimes in areas where it is still rough you may need to use the plane at a skew or use it in a scrubbing circular motion in just that area.

   Make sure your plane is extremely sharp and takes very thin shavings. You should be able to see through the shavings.

   The steeper that the angle of the plane ramp is, the less likely it is to tear but the harder it is to adjust. I made a 60 degree plane and it will easily smooth areas which my 45 degree planes will not.

1. 
   Anon | Mar 21, 2006 07:18pm | #2

   Thanks, I will give that a try this evening.  I take it the very slight roughness is NOT the way a planed cherry board should ever look? 

1. 
   AdamCherubini | Mar 22, 2006 02:10am | #3

   That rough spot is like end grain. Nothing is going to change that. If you sanded it, it would feel smoother because wood dust and loose grit would fill the pores. But when you finish it, its going to look different than the other areas. That's just the way cherry is.Besides all that, I think its silly to try to hand plane wood so that it looks like it was machined. Hand plane wood so that it was obviously done by hand. Instead of thinking of tearout as flaws, be proud of it because its the natural texture of the tree that is now your coffee table or whatever. We should never apologize for our hand work in any way. That's my view.Adam

1. 
   SteveSchoene | Mar 22, 2006 06:31am | #4

   I believe surfaces should reflect the esthetic wishes of the maker, and not necessarily the tools used to get there.  Hand planes are suitable for achieving perfectly flat and smooth surfaces called for in certain modern studio furniture.  They are also suitable for for working on rough hewn "country" furniture, and about anything in between.  If the design calls for flat surfaces without overt tools marks then it is perfectly legitimate to use hand planes in achieving that surface.    

   I think in terms of American period reproductions.  Early Queen Anne would be expected to show more surface undulations from planing.  Chippendale surfaces will be more refined.  Federal period furniture, especially that finished by French polishing, will have nearly perfect surfaces, though not quite looking like they came from a wide belt sander.  Furniture of all of these styles were, and can be finished with hand planes. 

   The figure roughness on cherry may also be inevitable, at least in the way it takes up finish..  But if there is physical roughness, sanding can actually smooth the surface -- or really scratch it with finer and finer scratches as the grit become finer.  It is not just an apparent smoothness due to collected sawdust or the like.   

   I would not take much pride in tear out, and would avoid it as much as possible. I just don't see it as an inevitable characteristic of wood.  In my mind tear out is an equivalent to leaving planer "ripple" as a defect of workmanship. Tear out is only seen on country pieces and on figured domestic hardwoods such as curly maple.  On curly maple or birch tear out may well be inevitable without resort to heavy use of abrasives.  Tear out on formal American black walnut or on mahogany is very, very rare in the museum collections I have seen. 

   Good plane technique, with very sharp blades, tight mouths, and steeper pitches than the later period carpenter's planes can virtually eliminate tearout, on all but the most difficult of woods.   Of course, not all pieces warrant the effort to eliminate tear out and in reproducing certain country items tearout wouldn't be a defect at all, though I think we can be confident that no country furniture maker in the 18th century ever set out to have tear out.  But he may well have not cared, whether for economic reasons, or from deficiencies in skill or tools. 

     

    

1. 
   Anon | Mar 22, 2006 02:10pm | #5

   Thanks very much for the feedback. I think many of the spots I'm concerned about are more akin to end grain, and I'll make sure to take care in finishing to avoid blotchiness. I think also that at least some of them are NOT that sort of natural pattern in the cherry and are really areas that either need more attention or would benefit from me having better hand tool skills. Ah well, this is the first time I've tried to do final surface prep with a plane, and I like it a lot better than sanding, both in process and in the surface, at loeast for the parts I can tell I got right. I'm sure the next peice will be even better. That's why I started with the non-show face of one of the most out-of-sight portions of the bed. Hopefully by the time I get to the really visible stuff I'll have improved a little.

2. 
   AdamCherubini | Mar 22, 2006 07:37pm | #6

   If I read your post and mine as if I hadn't written one of them, I would agree with you and disagree with my post.  I think you are absolutely right.

   And tho I disagree with the words in my post, I understand what I was going for (which I still agree with).

   I'm concerned that folks have unreasonable expectations of their hand tools and worry about little patches of rough wood.

   Adam

   P.S.  Even tho I don't like it or use, I'm fairly sure sandpaper is not the anti-christ.

   Edited 3/22/2006 2:51 pm ET by AdamCherubini

3. 
   Patto | Mar 24, 2006 04:35am | #7

   it is if you go back to the plane afterwards!