Ok, here we go, the question I’m sure you’ve all seen a thousand times on this forum: what planes should I buy?
Here’s the background: I’ve only been doing the woodworking(/tool collecting) thing for about a year now as a hobby/obsession, but I’m already sick of sanding – so damn loud, dusty, and unsatisfying. So I want to buy some hand planes. Now, I’ve already got a nice shoulder and bullnose plane from Lee Valley, as I needed them (desperately, as I told my girlfriend, who just rolled her eyes) to fit up a few earlier projects. I also have a new Stanley bench plane (purchased when I was younger and more naive) which I still can’t get to work right (although that might just be b/c of my inexperience; I really hope that eventually I’ll get it tuned into a decent smoothing plane). And I don’t ever plan to give up my power jointer and planer, so I’m more in need of planes for finishing things up. BUT, since I find myself doing more panel glue-ups for wide wine cubbies and table tops that my planer (a 12 incher) and jointer (6 inches) just can’t handle, I need something to even these sorts of surfaces.
Right now, I figure I can afford 2 new planes. But I’m going nuts trying to decide which ones.
I’m pretty sure someone is going to say a block plane is a must-have for cleaning up smaller surfaces. From everything I’ve read, this seems to be true. The question then becomes, standard or low-angle? It seems that everyone is nuts for low-angle these days, but after reading Leonard Lee’s book on sharpening I’m thinking that I could get a std. angle block plane along with a spare blade which I would put a 15 degree primary bevel and 10 degree back bevel on, thereby producing what is in essence a low-angle block plane. Seems like the best of both worlds; is there a catch?
As for a second plane, since I want to even large surfaces I was thinking about the Veritas 18″ fore plane or 15″ low-angle jack plane. Their 22″ jointer seems too long to be of much general use (although is it really?). I’d really like to buy from Lee Valley/Veritas as I’ve liked everything I’ve purchased from them and they’re much less expensive than Lie-Nielson. The problem is that it seems to me that the low-angle jack won’t work well for face grain, although I could get a 38 degree spare blade (but damn spare blades are expensive). But then would it be too short for those times when a little fine-tuning is needed after power jointing? Eventually, will it become obsolete if I later get a smooth plane and fore/jointer? Is it at that lenth As for the fore, it seems so long I worry whether it is it terribly practical for smaller projects, like, I don’t know, something the size of a breadbox. (Although I’m wondering why I couldn’t use a fore or jack plane as a smoothing plane, just an overly long one. Is it really a problem if a third of your plane is poking off the workpiece to start with?)
Ok, whew, that was a long one, and I thank anyone who managed to read through the whole thing. I guess I’m suffering from that age-old delimma of trying to figure out how to get everything I want from one or two planes, when there’s a reason different types exist. Still, any suggestions would be most appreciated! Thanks again,
Jason
Replies
Hello Jason,
First I would get a Hock blade and chip breaker for the Stanley. It should make a world of difference on the low end Stanley. I have an old Stanley #3 that was nothing special until I equipped it with the Hock blade and breaker, now it is one of my favorites.
Yes, a block plane is a good choice, I find them very useful (the low angle version, that is). I would recommend the Lie-Nielsen, only because that is the one I have. In addition to the low angle block, I have found the Lie-Nielsen #4 to be worth its weight in gold. You would have to pry that one from my cold dead hands, that's how much I like that plane.
Finally, I would look into a jointer of some type, probably a #7.
Bob, Tupper Lake, NY
Edited 8/25/2006 6:10 am ET by salamfam
Hi Jason
You sound as if you have given some thought to which planes you need, however I will remind you of this - the planes you buy need to fit in with your current or projected work.
To answer your question directly, my recommendation would be the LV LA Jack and a LA block plane.
The LV LA Jack is a superb all rounder, perhaps one of the few types of planes that is capable of performing as a specialist plane in different areas. Since the cutting angle is taken from the bevel angle, it pays to keep 2 or 3 blades on hand - one higher angle for smoothing face grain (I am not sure where you got the idea that it could not do this - indeed, there are many who use this place as their specialist smoother. I prefer to think of it as a panel plane), one low angle for end grain (it is a super plane on a shooting board), and another with a radiused bevel for general jack work. It also performs well as a jointer for shorter lengths.
The block plane of choice is a low angle. Again, with a choice of blades, it can be set up for end grain, as a small smoother on face grain, and as a general trimmer for odd-and-ends. I have not used the LV, of which I have heard terrific things (it has a few add-ons of interest, such as a bevel jig and add-on tote). It is wider than the LN 60 1/2 I use, and which I consider to be very comfortable. At a lower price, but not lower performance, is the LN #102, another one I use and love (small, heavy in its bronze livery, wonderful in the hand). The LV equivalent to this is the Apron plane.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I disagree with my friend Derek. You don't even seem to understand how the length of a plane effects its ability to cut. How can you possibly know where your woodworking will take you in the future?
As I see it, you've got two choices. You can either become as knowledgeable as Derek about planes, or wallow in your ignorance (like me) and just buy the traditional three basic surface planes- a smoother, fore plane and a long try plane. Sounds like you've already got a smoother (I'm assuming its a #4- you didn't mention)- so step one- go make that work. Rest assured Derek or I could make it work. It can be done. So that's your first step. Once that's making nice shavings, only then you will have earned the right to buy more planes.
The next plane is the #5 (you should have started with this one). The #5 is a roughing plane and the challenge is to buy the worst looking or cheapest plane ever seen and get it working. Some guys do this wrong- they get the world's worst plane and lap the sole and tune it like a smoother. That's not what I'm talking about. You start with an old or junky tool and you learn to make it work- What does it take to make a fore/jack plane work properly? That's what you need to answer.
The last plane is the try plane. A #7 is okay (or any other manufacturer's equivalent), but generally longer is better. If you were able to get your #4 and #5 working, you'll be able to buy a used #7 and get it working.
So far, these two additional planes have cost you no more than $50. But you now have a decent grinder and some kick @ss whetsones, sandpaper and a lapping plate etc. You've spent your time developing much needed plane iron sharpening skills. That's good. You'll need them later. But now that you have these skills and the wood planing skills, I recommend you buy a better smoother. I don't think you will be able to take advantage of a good smoother until you've done everything else here. That's when you need to go back to Derek and get his recommendation on a smoothie.
I'll bet if you asked Derek, he learned the same way as I did. Making old planes work, then buying better planes. I recognize that you (and everyone else) would like to skip that first part and just jump to the buying better planes part. I just don't think it works.
Adam
Ah Adam, yours is by far a better response than mine. And I agree with all you say (and, yes, I did learn on old Stanley and even older Mathieson woodies).
There is this dimemma, one that I have written about before - does one provide a novice handtooler with a decent, already-tuned handplane, one that will get him/her enthused and keep him/her working and enjoying the work? Or does one encourage the use of a basic, inferior handplane, but with potential - potential that will emerge as part of an education into handplane use. The risk here, however, is that the novice handtooler might grow disillusioned and give up.
The decision was easier when I was a novice as there was not the choice that is available today.
One assumption is that there a lesson to be learned in using vintage planes - learning to tune them, and making them work in challenging situations.
In a sense there is a a sort of Krenov-like opportunity in using the LV/LN/Clifton, etc, etc in that one might use a tool that does not involve a fight, and so forget the tool and concentrate on the work. This assumes that one wants to build items rather than just use tools.
I suspect that the answer (if there is such a thing) is that one cannot pigeon-hole handtoolers. Some will be content with any plane as long as it works. Some will buy the tools, new or old, to own the tools. And others will want to enjoy the tools as they enjoy the work.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I'm glad to read your post. I think its very helpful.
I used to feel as you do. Now I'm leaning toward the notion that all of us must learn (or have learned) on junk tools. Its nice to say that new, well tuned tools allow you to focus on the work instead of the tool. But is that reality? I think the skill of woodworking is getting the tool, any tool, to do what you want it to do. I think its easier to do the work with the new tool- but then also harder to learn the skill.
While I was writing earlier, and at risk of sounding elitist or condescending, I was hoping Chemist would see the fun and challenge of working with older planes and ACQUIRING SKILLS NOT TOOLS. Its certainly fun for me.
I think to some extent the reason we read so many grumpy letters about FWW's content slipping is exactly this- Its fun to learn new things and acquire new skills. I suspect its as satisfying as completing projects. I think skill acquisition is a major motivation and most guys can't see it. Once one's skills are developed, the challenges are diminished and some of the fun is gone.
For me, I'm still in skill acquisition mode. So I'm thrilled with woodworking. And each new thing I learn gives me a feeling of accomplishment and success. I want that for Chemist.
And to the grumpy gus' who don't like FWW: Take up carving, or unplug your power tools, or start your next project with a log and an axe. Then report back about the content of your favorite woodworking magazine (even the exact same issues you are complaining about). My guess is you will have quite the opposite opinion (though you'll probably complain there isn't enough content on axe grinding- Boy is FWW slipping!).
Cheers Derek, Best of Luck Chemist!
Adam
Edited 8/25/2006 2:23 pm ET by AdamCherubini
And even then it is not the matter of the plane but of being able to read the grain of the work you are asking it to fettle. Buying the best plane available does not help if you should be using a scraper. I would suggest Chemist gets ten minutes practical help from his nearest friendly experienced person.
While I was writing earlier, and at risk of sounding elitist or condescending, I was hoping Chemist would see the fun and challenge of working with older planes and ACQUIRING SKILLS NOT TOOLS. Its certainly fun for me.
Hey Adam,
I don't think neither you nor Derek fail to see both sides of the issue--but of course a point-counter point makes it appear as if there are two philosophies at work. But I don't really think that is true, at least in the main.
I have run across people in hand tool classes where the challenge of woodwork with hand tools was enough in itself--they didn't also want to acquire the skills/challenges some vintage tools bring. It is, of course, merely a mental roadblock. Down the road, these people will often pick up a vintage tool, be it a woodie or metal plane, and recondition it to usability. And then discover the only problem that existed was the thinking behind new or vintage. Too, now that they know what a particular tool is suppose to accomplish and so they have a better understanding of how to make the vintage tool into one which will not hinder what it is they desire to accomplish.
As well, I have run into people who for a multitude of reasons bought vintage, failed to bring them to a usable state and when they try out a new plane in class have a moment of "Ah...that's what is suppose to happen." Most times we can get their purchase[s] to a very usable state and it happens all over again, but this time with the vintage tools. But for others, it is new all the way after that moment.
So my opinion is, I don't really care. Vintage is a preference of mine, for me. Which may sound odd coming from me. There are vintage tools I recreate in order to have something in better shape than I can find in the wild, whether it is saws, planes or lately, calipers, and is merely means to an end.
My only goal in the hand tool classes is to get people to not think about the tools so much and instead put them to work. If it takes new, so be it. If old, bring 'em into class and we'll make them into tools one can use.
Ok, rambling [and lunch] is over.
Take care, Mike
Of course, there will never be a single correct answer to your dilemma, because it depends on the personality of the learner, not on the relative merits of different tools or procedures. But I would lean toward giving that learner the experience of using a few sharp, tuned, well-made tools. Not a whole shop full of them, just the minimum, then add to them gradually by hook or by crook (yard sales etc) as sustained interest is proven.I see no need to make a kid cut himself shaving a hundred times on a groady old hand me down razor.
Chemist,
You have several issues to deal with and require immediate attention. First, the best way to deal with Girlfriend's rolling eyes is marry her...you'll be amazed how quickly those eyes will turn into a cold stare.
Second, David Charlesworth has some great DVD's on sharpening and setting up a plane. I had never seen anything on the setting up part and it made a world of difference in the planes performance.
Third, you'll want a jointer (#7-#8) for leveling those big panels after glue-up. I don't have a power jointer so I find it indespenable for jointing also. Make sure you wait a couple of weeks after glue-up before working the panels to let the moisture equalize.
Lastly, I can't afford all new LN or LV planes. I like to put my money into used stuff and buy new stuff where it really counts...like a smoother.
Jason,
You've gotten some very good advice so far. Here's my nickel's worth:
Before you embark on this slippery slope, I suggest that you first get a couple of books:
Planes: Garret Hack's Handplane Book is probably the best general book on hand planes; his Classic Hand Tools is also very good. Mike Dunbar's book on Restoring, Tuning, and Using Classic Hand Tools is very useful for tuning up and prepping planes (and other tools); the plane sections are very thorough. Andy Rae's Choosing and Using Hand Tools also has a lot of good information on planes and other hand tools. There are several others worth taking a look at, as well.
_____
Adam and Derek both make the very good point that you will learn a LOT about planes by taking an old one (or a cheap -- not necessarily inexpensive -- new one) and tuning it up so that it works (more or less) properly. There is a sometimes significant learning curve here, depending on your current skills -- sharpening, etc. -- and knowledge level.
I've tuned up a number of old Stanley planes, and they are some of the best planes in my arsenal, BUT, if you don't have a "mentor" readily available, then you need to know what "right" looks like; i.e., what a properly tuned hand plane looks and feels like, and how it feels and sounds when it shears off those no-tear-out .001" translucent bird's eye maple shavings.... My point is that it is, IMO, worth spending the money to buy at least one high quality bench plane (LN, LV, or Clifton, for production Bailey pattern metal planes) so you have a bench mark for any other planes you acquire in the future (new or used).
Which plane(s) to buy? These five will handle about 90% of most people's planing needs (IMO):
Low and Standard angle block planes (#9-1/2 and #60-1/2, or equivalents)
Smoothing plane (#4 or #4-1/2)
Jack plane (#5 or #5-1/2)
Trying /Jointer plane (#6, # 7 or #8)
Now, which two do you buy now? As has already been stated, it depends on what you're going to need for your next (couple of) projects.
If you want as much versatility as possible with as few planes as possible, then I would suggest an adjustable mouth, low angle block plane (#60-1/2) (yup, I did it.....) and a LN #5-1/2. Rationale: AM LA BP will take care of just about all of your end grain planing needs and many of your long grain trimming needs. The #5-1/2 will serve as a jack plane (open up the mouth), long smoothing/panel plane (close the mouth up), and short trying/jointer plane (adjust mouth, as required). The LN can also be had with a high angle frog (or it can be bought separately), which will allow you to tackle most of the nastier-grained domestic and some of the more benign exotic hardwoods. You can also get similar results with an old Stanley #5-1/2 (minus the HA frog), generally at a significantly lower $$ cost, but there will be the time and effort cost of tuning it up, and perhaps replacing the iron and chipbreaker.
_____
**BEGIN RANT** I'm not a fan of the current low-angle-planes-for-everything fad; I see LA planes as being rather specialised tools: ones that have a real use for certain limited hand planing operations. I question the assertion that they can do "everything" and do it well. This, of course is merely my opinion and experience; there are others who are strong advocates of LA planes for general use, based on their experiences. Like most other aspects of life, there are many ways to approach things in woodworking. Some work better than others, but they all work. As long as you're happy with it, it's safe, and you get the results you're looking for, in the end, it really doesn't matter how you got there......**END RANT**
_____
Misc comments:
For a jointing plane, here are some considerations to help you decide which length is "long enough." For jointing, the rule of thumb is "longer is better": longer sole = straighter/flatter surface. Will you be edge jointing any boards longer than about 3 feet? If so, then you want a #7, a #8, or a 28" or 30" wooden jointer. On the other hand, if most of what you'll be making is smaller projects or boxes, then a #6 would work just fine. (When it comes down to it, you could joint an edge with a LA block plane; it just requires more skill and time.....)
<<(Although I'm wondering why I couldn't use a fore or jack plane as a smoothing plane, just an overly long one. Is it really a problem if a third of your plane is poking off the workpiece to start with?) >>
You can....just tighten up the mouth and adjust the iron to take a very thin/fine shaving. In the UK, this is known as a "panel plane," most of which (if made by a famous maker) tend to be rather pricey..... It doesn't matter that a huge portion of your plane is off the edge (initially or at the end of the planing stroke), as long as you keep it from dipping and rounding off the edge.
<<....Seems like the best of both worlds; is there a catch? >>
Yes: you face the potential of creating an edge that is too fragile to hold up against anything other than the softest of woods. The same comments and (edge geometry) principles apply to plane irons as to chisels (refer to your thread on the chipped chisel for details).
_____
All of this is a rather long-winded way to say the following: get the plane(s) you need for your next project or two; the others will come as the projects come.
Hope that this is of some use to you.
Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen!
James
Edited 8/29/2006 10:54 am by pzgren
Jason,
James is pretty much on track, he's given you some good information.
One thing no one has mentioned is the condition of an old plane. I suspect you'll end up with old Stanley Bailey planes initially if you go for vintage planes. Conventional wisdom says look for "user" grade planes rather than planes in better condition collectors look for.
The simple reality is that the planes you're most likely to want a pretty common and most collectors acquire good examples quickly. These better planes are cheap compared to the labor of lapping a plane in poor condition. I advise you to seek out the better quality planes. Dealers will point out how much original finish remains and a lot of other things that shouldn't matter to you much. What matters is how much use the plane had and how much it has worn.
Adam suggests you start with a #5 to #6 because they're traditionally used for heavy stock removal. Wear isn't as big an issue on fore planes like these so, as far as roughing (fore) planes, Adam is leaning in the right direction. For smooth planes, trying planes and jointers wear is more serious. Old cast iron planes wear relatively quickly at the mouth because of the heat generated in planing. Here's a photo of the old #4 I used a lot over the years. I don't use it much anymore but I did and once lapped most of the wear out of the mouth. I used it enough that it's as bad as it ever was.
View Image
This old plane still has a lot of its original iron but many of the "user" grade planes out there have spent irons and have never been lapped. One can only guess what the condition of the mouth may be in those planes. In the condition this plane is in, it's impossible to set a tight mouth. The rounding of the leading edge of the mouth runs around 1/32" around six times bigger than what you would want for final smoothing in difficult woods.
You should look for a crisp mouth in your planes, more like what you see at the edges of the mouth in the photo. Antique tool dealers never mention mouth wear and have no allowance for it in their grading system. Newer planes of bronze have significantly better wear properties and new ductile iron planes I use don't seem closer to the bronze than the old cast iron when it comes to mouth wear.
First off, I want to thank everyone for their advice - a lot of it has really made me think. A few comments of my own:Ref. Pzgren's comments on edge fragility: I agree that putting a 15 degree bevel on a std. block plane blade is going to lead to massive problems with edge retention. But, by putting a 10 degree back bevel on it, the angle of the edge becomes 25 degrees (Imagine a line beginning at the tip of the edge and moving down the side of the blade parallel to the two faces. The two angles measured from this line to each of the two faces add to 25 degrees. But because the angle of the cut is only determined by the angle of the top edge as it meets the wood in a bevel-up plane, the effective cutting angle is still 15 degrees; add the 20 degree bed and you have a 35 degree low angle block plane.) The only thing lost is 10 degrees of clearance angle, but considering that the bed angle is 20 degrees we still have 10 degrees clearance. So I still don't know why this isn't the better choice (although I suppose one could get a low angle block plane and put a really chunky bevel on a spare iron to make it double as a std block plane).And Adam, I do feel like I understand how a plane's length affects it's ability to cut. A long plane will follow along the tops of an uneven board without cutting troughs, thereby serving to flatten it. A smaller smoothing plane will follow the local contours, so can't be used (at least easily) to flatten/joint; it can only be used to smooth an already flat surface. But as far as I can tell smoothness is just a function of taking lighter passes - closing up the mouth and setting in the iron. So as far as I can tell, better to have nothing but long planes, some set for thick shavings, others for light. Well, for small pieces I can still see how an overly large plane would be awkward to use, but in general longer will provide leveller surfaces that are just as smooth.I do have to admit feeling sheepish about that Stanley (it is a #4 after all), so I spent a good three hours in the basement tuning it up this evening. After a lot of swearing and almost ruining the chip breaker trying to get it close to square, as best I can tell the plane is now pretty decent for smoothing. But it sure as hell is a lot more fun to shave off wood than tune the plane. I mean Jesus, if I wasn't interested in acquiring skills and just wanted to build soulless stuff I could keep sanding away and buy every jig/machine they sell in the catalogues - instant factory furniture. But I'm also not interested in struggling with inferior hand tools - while I know any hand tool will require significant tuning and maintenance, I'd rather be able to spend more of what short time I have in the basement building things, less time tuning finicky tools. Finally: where does one go to buy good vintage tools? I live in Ithaca, which is really only close to Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo (in terms of larger cities). So far I've pretty much relied on mail-order for fine woodworking tools, and would want to be able to go look at anything used before buying it. Does anyone have any suggestions?Ok, it's late and this post is long enough. Really, thanks to all again,Jason
Hi Jason,
The only thing lost is 10 degrees of clearance angle, but considering that the bed angle is 20 degrees we still have 10 degrees clearance. So I still don't know why this isn't the better choice (although I suppose one could get a low angle block plane and put a really chunky bevel on a spare iron to make it double as a std block plane).
While the theory of what you are saying works just fine, pratically a back bevel of 10 degrees on a BU plane bedded at 20 degrees is more trouble maintaining than any marginal gain in edge strength.
You will find, I believe, that the lower wear bevel created will require more honing of the primary bevel to eliminate the wear bevels created on both the primary and back bevels than any gain is strength is worth. In turn you will also need to reestablish this back bevel every sharpening or two or loose its theoretical benefit.
Too, a block plane is not a plane of which demanding, heavy work is required of. That is unless one uses it as a sort of mini-smoother. A task it is not often called upon to do, nor is adept at performing regularly.
In use as is typical of a block plane, a bevel of 25 or 30 degrees is sufficient for typical work and affords plenty of strength for the tasks needed in a wide variety of woods. Added benefit is honing a single side of the iron. So, as regards a block plane, the choice is really honing a single bevel or two bevels in order to achieve equal utility. I choose to hone a single bevel. You may choose to do both. I'd rather sharpen less.
Take care, Mike
Jason,You happen to live very close to one of the better Internet old tool dealers. Tom Bruce has his web site at:http://www.workingtools.biz/I've only bought from Tom via the Internet but he's a great guy and one of the founders of the oldtools mailing list. He's the reason the oldtools listserve is hosted by Cornell.
If you had a hard time getting the leading edge of the chipbreaker square, use a guide, same for the irons. I bought the small grey one from WoodCraft but it's available from L-N, Lee Valley and others. Really cheap, like $10 on sale to about $14 when it's not on sale. One side is square to the thrust line so it's hard to not be square. None of my irons were totally square when I started but they all are now. A Stanley chipbreaker can be re-curved and lapped if a lot of material needs to be removed, too. A couple of mine were curved, bent and generally in pretty bad condition and after reading the various posts and threads on plane reconditioning, they all lay flat and straight across the leading edge. My #4 is a British one from the '30s and after reading some of the posts, I was a little disappointed because it sounded like it was going to be a dog. I paid about $25 for it and went ahead with the refurb. Flattening the sole took some time because it had never been done before and this plane saw a good amount of use, based on the shape of the mouth and the way the sole seemed to be twisted (heat generated and pulling on the knob while pushing on the tote). I had also heard that the first thing I should do is throw the iron out and get a Hock or L-N replacement, which I did for a #7 that had an iron that was more than used up. Even that wasn't totally square, using the guide or all of my squares to check it. Well, I'll tell ya, the original iron has a mirror finish on the honed surface and breezes through hard maple, cutting wispy thin shavings that are too fluffy to bother measuring. It holds an edge pretty well, too. Having extra irons is the best way to not waste time sharpening while working on a project. If they're all sharpened and honed the same, using one won't be different from any other. Not all Stanley irons are exactly the same, but mine are pretty good. The one from my first #7 is laminated, so the tool steel takes the brunt of the wear and the mild steel is just used as a backer. The 2-3/8" irons were frequently laminated. Go to the Patrick Leach site- you'll get a lot of info that you can use.To find these planes, go to the flea markets, yard sales and antique stores. ebay has quite a few good ones, too. The more you see, your feel for prices will get better. I messed a beautiful #5C that went for $34 (missed by 4 seconds) because there was no reserve and it was the first thing I ever bid on, so I didn't know the best ways to win the auctions. If you go past a place that could conceivably have one, it probably does and by passing it up, you'll never know for sure. I went into a shop near a job after passing a few days because I thought "their prices are going to be on the high side, due to the location". Boy, was I wrong! Bought a low-knob #7 and a #6C (kind of a Franken-Plane) for $40, total. The #7 still has the original surface grinding marks on the sole and cheeks, with a little pitting but I have never seen a mouth that was so crisp, cheeks that were so square to the sole and a sole that was so flat. It was clearly not used much.You'll find them, just keep looking.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
"A smaller smoothing plane will follow the local contours, so can't be used (at least easily) to flatten/joint; it can only be used to smooth an already flat surface."I find no boards are truly flat so small smoothers are a real asset."But as far as I can tell smoothness is just a function of taking lighter passes - closing up the mouth and setting in the iron. So as far as I can tell, better to have nothing but long planes, some set for thick shavings, others for light."Sounds like you're very well informed. That's good. I think one thing you may fall into is something I've been mulling over for a year or so. You were talking about adjusting a cut and getting smooth from a long plane and cleaning up something a jointer did. To some extent, when you are cleaning up machine jointed/surfaced stock, it almost doesn't matter what length your planes are. The boards are already flat. So guys like Rob Cosman essentially has all his planes set up like smoothers (blade and throat wise). Ditto, the plane makers including C&W seem to make long planes with tight (or adjustable) throats. The #5 is supposed to be a roughing plane, yet lots of guys pay big bucks for the bedrock anti chatter design. As if that matters for a roughing plane! Well it does to them because "roughing" is not a standard term.What's this have to do with you? Well there are two different forces at work here- guys who plane prepared stock and guys who prepare their stock with planes. The former camp isn't really dimensioning stock with their planes- they need planes that replace sanders. The latter camp needs planes that replace surface planers, and sometimes band saws (when large thickness changes are required). So they need planes that really hog off material. Pretty sure when Williamsburg's Hay shop got C&W jack planes they chiseled the throats open. That would be sacriliedge to some. But you can see why they'd need to do it. I'm in that latter camp of folks working without power tools, so my advice pertains to dimensioning stock with planes. I don't smooth anything with a try plane and my try plane doesn't have a particularly tight throat. My fore plane's throat is probably a 1/4". I think you need to know that the camps exist and you should try to discern the difference between them and place authors, pundits etc into their proper camps. Eventually you'll need to join one or recognize whether this day you are in one and tomorrow you are in another. Does that make sense? There's no value judgement here mind you. Just two different ways of working- two different paths with two different solutions. (sorry for the mixed methaphor!)Adam
Adam
I have got to stop agreeing with all you say, or else we won't have anything to discuss! But I do agree, so I will just amplify.
Metod asked (with tongue planted firmly in his cheek), How exactly do you get from a standing tree, that might be miles away from your workshop, to a dimensioned board? At what point do you switch (if you are not using them from the very beginnig) to handtools only?
Until yesterday all my dimensioning was by tablesaw, bandsaw and handplanes. I have now acquired a thicknesser-planer (still no powered jointer), and it was a very interesting experience to use it (first one I ever have used!). Why did I get one? Well, I am soon to embark on a very large project for home - two walls (in separate rooms) of floor-to-ceiling bookcases - that will be built from recycled Jarrah. There is just too much to do by hand.
Yesterday I ran some old floorboards through the thicknesser (a new Delta 560, for those who are curious). It was fascinating to see the finish produced. Since the boards are for an outdoor table, I am not concerned about an ultimate surface. The machined finish was excellent. If I had chosen to handplane it further (if it were to be used indoors), then I could have used any finely-set plane (as long as it had a high cutting angle - we are talking Jarrah here), irrespective of the length of the plane's sole. I might have chosen my LV LA Jack in this respect - nice weight, great performance .,.
When I prepare boards without a specialist machine, such as rough cut roofing trusses or old, often twisted floor boards, I rely on a few scrub planes before turning to a couple of jacks for preliminary preparation. The aim here is to get the boards as flat as possible, with the least effort, and as fast as possible (because this is not the most fun part of woodworking, although I do get some satisfaction from creating the boards themselves). This is messy work. No fine shavings here!
My favourite scrub planes are a Stanley #40 (for fine work), a LV Scrub (for general work), and a Stanley #5 1/2 with a heavily radiused blade (for large and hard woods). In the review I wrote on the LV Scrub, I suggested that LV produce a scrub plane even larger than this already large version (relative to the LN Scrub). For hard woods nothing beats heft - the need to use the planes momentum to slice through tough Jarrah and the like. After the scrubs I use a jack with a moderate radius (to smooth out the ridges), and only then can I consider a jointer plane.
Boards that are flattened this way are still going to have some hollows. If I used a long smoother this would necessitate removing a lot of surface area to find a common level. With a small smoother I could ride some of the less important peaks, and still smooth the surface. This is the reason that "old world" smoothers, such as Spiers infills and coffin woodies, are typically about 7 1/2" long. I suspect that the "long smoothers" (like the Marcou S15/BU) are an advent of modern times, where one combines power (for preparation) and hand (for finish) work.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Hi Derek,
Im curious about your system of scrubs and jack planes. Could you elaborate on the radii used on the various sizes?
Thanks
Tom
The line I'm drawing is between the modern craftsmen with surfaced, dimensioned stock- cleaning up pretty clean surfaces left by a table saw or planer and the modern craftsmen starting with rough sawn lumber with irregular edges and surfaces and dimensioning the stock with hand planes and hand saws.
I'd just like to add (and not in any way responding to Metod) that there's a common misconception that 18th furniture makers (and we who emmulate them) felled their own trees, converted their own stock, and made fine furniture from it. In almost every instance where we can document such activity (and they are few), the cabinetmaker essentailly owned a seperate saw mill business. So this is not at all to say that a cabinetmaker (or his apprentice) with his three surface planes and his rip saws dressed down tree trunks. This simply didn't happen and isn't practical then or now.
Adam
The question that comes to my mind is what kind of things are you building? I also love using my spokeshaves and scrapers. If you don't build lots of large table tops, then you might want to think of other specialty tools. You want to consider what kinds of wood are you using. Soft woods, hardwoods, and highly figured woods will all change what kind of blade and angles to look for when buying your planes. I have both lee-valley and lie-neilson plains and I don't see any benefits except that the lee-valley is cheaper.
Good luck, Brandon
Metod and All,
This discussion is a fascinating one for me as I too am taking something of a hand tool plunge. I began the handtool adventure about a year ago, starting with green woodworking. This was a far as I could get from my previous 9 years of machinery-oriented cabinet making.
In pursuance of a better understanding of the green WW topic, I bought and devoured a number of green WW books, the best of which (in terms of information-per-dollar at least) is Alex W. Bealer's "Old Ways of Working Wood". There is loads in there about tree felling, splitting, planking and so forth. Also lots about the later stages of making items from the prepared wood. He covers many techniques and tools but also says a lot about the material (timber) itself. Metod, you may find it a Good Read.
Although it didn't really gel in my head until I read this thread (Adam's posts in particular) I have slowly come to realise that there are gaps between WW styles - it isn't one continuum from old to new methods or from hand tool to machine tool.
For example, apart from an electric lathe (as opposed to a pole lathe) I didn't really find any machine tool useful for typical green WW projects. The historical design and scope of green WW stuff is very much integral with hand tools and methods, which are in turn closeley determined by the nature of green wood.
There seems also to be a "natural gap", as well-described by Adam, between the kind of cabinet-making that still uses machine tools to ease basic tasks (like dimensioning planks or large assemblies such as panels) and a more holistic handtool approach that eschews powered machinery altogether.
This "gap" seems to be determined partly by a preference within the woodworker (for a wholly historical approach) and partly by the nature of the furniture (less rectilinear styles being generally more approachable with handtools, including those specifically evolved to meet the demands of their complexity).
This way of looking at things does seem to make it easier to cross off tools from the long potential list. My cross-offs-so-far include: the scrub and try planes; but also the rip panel saw, a long list of carving chisels and that large adze. (I am still struggling with the mortise and paring chisel list). This is because my preffered styles are mostly rectilinear and I have no dislike of machine tools for doing tedious stuff.
Lataxe
PS I am happy to see Derek is having a play with a new machine tool. :-) Perhaps he can give up one or two of his 19 handsaws or even cull a few hand planes from his vast "herd". I am waiting for Philip Mrcou to invent "The Single All-Purpose Handplane and M&T Maker", as Derek will buy one and I will pick up his redundant saws and planes cheap.
This "gap" seems to be determined partly by a preference within the woodworker (for a wholly historical approach) and partly by the nature of the furniture (less rectilinear styles being generally more approachable with handtools, including those specifically evolved to meet the demands of their complexity).
Not to sound condescending, but I suspect as your experience grows you will find the gap you speak of extends beyond the obvious, free form vs rectilinear, to less obvious machine made carcass joinery vs. hand made carcass joinery.
Its a little off topic, but I've found that there truly are distinctly different ways of working wood- each way designed with a specific product in mind. Picking and choosing from among these different ways inevitably creates some sacrifice- either in efficiency or authenticity of the style. In short, I think you can't pick "the best of both worlds". I understand this labels me as a purist. I also understand that's supposed to be derogatory term.
For the most part, I think most woodworkers don't care about any of this. But when problems arise that obviously indicate a failure to recognize the gap, I never hear this issue raised. Here are a few examples of the problems I hear that relate to this:
"I use Japanese pull saws for dovetails but I'm having trouble cross cutting with a western saw."
Some tools are designed to work together, to reinforce skills, or make use of common techniques. Picking and choosing techniques from seemingly "the best available" isn't always the most efficient way to work.
"How you do cut a raised panel? I'm making hand made kitchen cabinets out of kiln dried hickory and..."
Some woods just aren't well suited for handtools. They really aren't one for one substitutes for power tools. English hand tools were developed with specific woods in mind.
These aren't the best examples, but you can find plenty more here on knots as woodworkers, oblivious of the gap divorce tools or techniques from from their intended applications.
Back on topic, what I often see (and do myself) are folks responding without the necessary qualifiers- What Chemist and other like him need are statements like "This is what I do and this is how I do it and the wood I work and the time I take and the finished product."
So I'll volunteer (to help make my point)- I work with crap planes that most of you wouldn't consider for book ends and I recommend them. You don't need better planes than I have, and many of you are wasting your money on expensive planes. (So that's my statement- here's the qualifier)- I work with soft straight grained woods, I start with rough sawn lumber and I like textured surfaces. My planes would not work the hard, abrasive Australian woods Derek uses.
I think where this inevitably leads is that there really aren't "many ways to skin a cat" There's only one good way for each different sort of cat. The problem is, folks don't know their cat is different from someone else's. (again sorry for the metaphor).
Adam
I hope this long convoluted post was worth your time. My apologies if it wasn't.
I think where this inevitably leads is that there really aren't "many ways to skin a cat" There's only one good way for each different sort of cat. The problem is, folks don't know their cat is different from someone else's. (again sorry for the metaphor).
Hi Adam
Thank you for this thoughtful post. There is considerable importance therein when one compares with others technique or tool performance or tool relevance. In some of my plane reviews I have stated that for most USA woodworkers these high quality planes (the LNs and LVs and the like) are likely to be overkill. For example, I suspect that relatively few woodworkers actually use such demanding woods that require high angle blades, and therefore most will not appreciate how good these planes actually are. By-and-large, working wood in Australia places different demands to working wood in the USA. Keep in mind that this is a generalisation, and I know that there are woods in the US that are as testing as those here in Oz. Even in Australia novice handtoolers begin with Stanley planes. Soon, however, these are modified with thicker blades, even in HSS, backbevelled to raise the cutting angle, and finally they purchase a bevel up plane or HNT Gordon. Horses for courses.
I do work with softwoods as well. Not often, but when I do it is quite a different experience. I keep a few planes just for softwoods. Here is an example:
View Image
Mujingfang jack taking a 10 foot shaving......
..... which is quite different to the shavings taken by a LV BU Jointer leveling a Jarrah tabletop.
View Image
Regards from Perth
Derek
Adam,
A well thought out and worded post.
Its a little off topic, but I've found that there truly are distinctly different ways of working wood- each way designed with a specific product in mind.
Taking this statement along with comments from the rest of your post: Is it fair to say that you voluntarily limit* yourself to certain styles (joinery etc.) and woods to achieve the best possible results from your way of woodworking? *Qualifier: I'm a not attempting to imply that you are limited in skills or style, only that you work towards the best results.
From this kind of idea would you reccomend that new woodworkers, and even intermediate hobbiests try to 'specialize' their skill sets and develop a unified 'way' in which to work wood? As a very basic example learning to use western style saws for all hand sawing applications.
In your opinion do you believe that recognizing this 'gap', and understanding the their 'way' is what separates the best from the good?
Buster
"...would you recommend that new woodworkers, and even intermediate hobbiests try to 'specialize' their skill sets and develop a unified 'way' in which to work wood?"While I think there are advantages in doing so, I'd have to answer "no". I think woodworkers should go wherever they are inclined or led. But they should go there with the knowledge that different paths are indeed different. If one's interests are as mine are in period work for example, I think there are economic and other advantages to doing that work as it was done and not attempting substitutions. (like your saw example)I'm guessing more accomplished folks like Rob Millard (who occasionally surfs here) would agree. He doesn't trade 3M spray adhesive for hide glue for attaching veneer for very good reasons. My guess is he wouldn't appreciate someone suggesting he uses hide glue solely because he's an irrational purist. I get such comments directed at me from time to time and while it doesn't bother me, I think its an indication of someone who doesn't understand about the gap we were talking about.To answer your personal question: The opposite is true. I limit myself to hand tools because I seek the highest authenticity and quality in early furniture. The furniture came first and the methods to support its construction second. Not vice versa. I really don't like woodworking that much. While I appreciate your efforts to avoid offending, you are exactly correct about my skills. For the same reason that the gap exists, my skills are SEVERELY limited. After 10 years of working wood, having been chosen by Early American Life magazine as one of their top 200 traditional artisans (2005), I've yet to operate a router, used a table saw once in those years (didn't like it) and had significant problems making basic plywood kitchen cabinets. After a few carcasses turned out horribly out of square, I determined I was unable to adequately cut and edge join plywood (with 18th c hand tools). It was actually faster for me to hand dt drawers out of maple than glue and screw plywood. It was kinda funny covering London pattern dt's with a ball bearing drawer slide, but that's what I did. I also painted over beautiful pins and tails to make my maple look like the melamine that was already in the kitchen!Adam
Edited 8/28/2006 7:26 pm ET by AdamCherubini
While I think there are advantages in doing so, I'd have to answer "no". I think woodworkers should go wherever they are inclined or led.
Thanks goodness! I was worried I took a wrong turn a few years back. I think that this kind idea is important. As a scoiety we seem to have been trained in doing things the 'best' way, whithout understanding what makes the way the best.
Thank you for answer the question. I visted your webpage when I got home, you work is very nice. I think had I visted it earlier I would not have had to ask the question.
The discussion brought to mind a quote I read recently: "Everyone has his or her own style... I wont tell you which one is correct." Masaaki Hatsumi (Martial Arts Master)
Buster
"Some woods just aren't well suited for handtools. They really aren't one for one substitutes for power tools. English hand tools were developed with specific woods in mind."Adam,You mentioned hickory as one wood not well suited for hand tools. What are some others (specifically for Western style tools)? I would assume pecan, since it is so similar to hickory. Others?btw, I like your articles. Keep up the good work.mark
Rather than tell you what you can or can't do, I'd rather just say- be careful about swapping species and expecting hand tools to work it easily. In the same way I'd caution against trying to duplicate what machines do with hand tools, I caution against trying to get them to work woods that weren't traditionally used. The tools were probably developed with specific species in mind.Adam
OK. I've actually done very little with machines, and even then it has only been pine and oak. I'll just keep my eyes open for comments from hand tool aficionados who complain about certain woods.mark
Lataxe,
I agree in large part with your point as it regards green woodworking. Less so in working dry lumber.
The technological "gap" as it were in styles of woodworking, seems to me to be to have been affected as much by degrees of scale (as it relates to efficiency) as by philosophy. For example, my methods of work span the whole continuum. I have a planer and jointer, and use them almost exclusively for stock preparation. However the scale of my operation limits me in practical terms to a 12" planer and a 6" jointer. (I don't have the shop space, or the bucks for larger machines.) So to surface and thickness boards too large for those machines, I use my wood-bodied foreplane and try plane. Everything gets the treatment from my wood bodied smoothing plane, so it all ends up looking the same. As for non-rectilinear shaping, I use a bandsaw instead of a bowsaw or a compass saw; for multiples- things like sets of Queen Anne or Chippendale chairs' rear legs- I clean them up by shaping to a template with a flat cutter on my shaper. For a single chair, restoration work,or other one-off project, it may be more efficient to clean up the sawmarks with a compass plane, scraper, or spokeshave. Or maybe my oscillating spindle sander.
Someone thinking in terms of large scale production, or from that background, will look to a shaper or router following a template (not a spokeshave), or similar solutions to a fabrication problem. Likewise a hand-tool "purist" will be resistant to seeing the advantages of machine technology if mostly he or she is working small amounts of wood at a time. Sort of like the "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" mindset. Thing is, most of us come from one or the other mindset- is that what you call a meme?-without much inclination to explore the possibilities of another paradigm. Too bad, in a way, but no big deal, unless your livelihood is dependant on getting product out the door in the most expeditious way. For the hobbyist, it's all about what is fun for you.
Regards,
Ray
Ray,
There ARE a lot of thoughtful posts in this thread. I am sucking in the knowledge!
I take your point about efficiency in a situation where time is money. Happily I am without those constraints, as I am nothing but a playboy of the shed. If I had to make my living with the wooden stuff, however, there seems little doubt that any tool selection driven by purism would tend to be driven out by the various economic necessities, particularly the addiction to red wine and chocolate.
Nevertheless, it must surely be the case that there are some styles and materials that require a certain tool type and associated skill because (as Adam is saying, I think) some work is amenable to only one method. To take an obvious example, I can't see that router-template "carvings" can substitute for hand carving, if a certain quality and style is required.
Of course, there are many other examples where a machine tool CAN do what a hand tool does, as per the examples you give. But shapers and spindle sanders are limited as to their profiles and minimum curvatures, presumably, where a hand tool may not be. Another oft-quoted example is the superfine dovetail, which can be closely approximated by, say, a woodrat - but not to the extent of making those DTs where the neck is the width of only a (very thin) sawblade.
Now Adam is right when he opines that I (and many others, probably) will discover limitations and advantages of various tools in combination with other factors like what is being made and with what, as new adventyres in cabinet making are taken on. This has certainly been the case with my 9 years of woodworking with machine tools. (Yes, oh WW religiosi, there are many skills and much WW knowledge to be found with such tools, despite their being attached to electric motors).
I suppose what I'm trying to get to (as perhaps is the original poster) is: what guidelines can be used to avoid buying every tool type and variation ever made? (Handtool use now being on my play agenda).
It would be good to discover the various tool lists without having to do it via multiple purchases followed by trial and error - as has been my "method" so far with machine tools, in all honesty.
All these thoughtful and experience-based posts are helping me to refine my various lists, with the guidellines becoming clearer by the post. Ah Knots! You are an excellent spot in cyberland.
Lataxe, ever a novice.
Derek - I'm interested that you classify jarrah as being tough to plane, as I've never found it any more problematic as, say, Brazilian mahogany or rock maple. Karri maybe. Then again maybe you're getting a lot of new growth stuff over there which may be a bit different to plane. Most of the stuff I've used has been the rich, dark red stuff up to 150 years or so old and it's been fine.I agree with you that you need different planes for different situations.
Handplane Central
I'm interested that you classify jarrah as being tough to plane
Hi Cameron
"Tough" as in "degree of difficulty". While some of the Jarrah is indeed very hard (e.g. very dry, recycled 100 year old floorboards), much of the Jarrah I see will tear out when planing with cutting angles below 60 degrees.
The Rock Maple I have worked with is, by comparison, quite variable. Some is easy enough. But I have had some with striations of hard and soft and reversing grain sections within it, which makes it very tricky to plane without tearout. I think I used a piece when reviewing Philips' smoother.
Some of the most dense (= hard) timber I have ever planed is old Karri. I will always recall one tabletop I built that bluntened every plane blade I used (pre-A2 or HSS) within a half-dozen strokes.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Uncle,
I have been enthralled by the varied views in this thread-always interesting to see where others are "coming from", and why.
So at the risk of an off the subject post I can't help pointing out an unfortunate misconception regarding spindle moulders (shapers).
You say "But shapers and spindle sanders are limited as to their profiles and minimum curvatures, presumably, where a hand tool may not be".
The shaper tends only to be limited as to profile choice because of the advent of solid profile blocks and sets of cutters. But this need not be so if one uses the safety type slotted collars and can grind cutters to any shape using laminated steels. And the French Head allows some pretty tight curves....
I am ofcourse a great fan of the grossly under-rated shaper.Philip Marcou
I believe Lataxe may have in mind the circumstances where a molding has an overhang in profile, which a spindle (or router) will not shape. Thus we bring back the wooden molding planes or scratch stock.
Philip,
You are a mine of arcane WW lore and know some strange terminology. I suspect you are a Witchdoctor of Woodworking and this is why you have been banished to Kiwistan.
Mufti is right when he mentions the example of a shaper-proof task. Another example might be those tombstone doors they're always recommending in various FWW articles. The cutters don't seem to do internal right angle profiles very well, because of geometry. (We can blame Euclid).
Still, when the long-lost rich auntie pops her clogs and the unexpected legacy comes my way, I may buy a shaper, along with a new shed to put it in. Meanwhile I will try them chisels and that - the things you real woodworkers use to such advantage and effect.
Speaking of chisels (and to get back to the original question of the thread) I just read an old FWW article recommending bevel, mortise and firmer as the three necessary types. Does one really need firmer chisels? They were recommended for paring tenons and other jobs that a shoulder plane might otherwise be used for. I was hoping to restrict my chisel list a bit and to add "shoulder plane" to the plane-list.......
Lataxe the Ignorant
Lat,
"does one really need firmer chisels?".
I have managed with only three-1/4",3/8" and 1/2"-but I avoid the primitive practice of chopping mortices like the plague-it is just no fun and there is a green button handy in times of need.
I am going into exile now.Philip Marcou
There is an element of truth in all this, and thats it. Philip speaks of power morticing, but if as I have been you are standing in a field surrounded by interested horses and are trying to replace a broken gate rail, then proper mortice chisels and a sturdy saw make life easier. As to the tool to use, I was lucky to do my nat service in Singapore and native craftsmen would put many to shame whilst using the most weird and forsaken collection of implements imaginable. It was not a question of how can I do it but when do you want it.
Mufti,
I can see that you have been affected by a Strange Experience when in Singapore, which makes you green button-wary and guilty about woodworking as play.
My Uncle Cornelius also served his National Service in Singapore and came back different. In his case, it was all to do with teaching his 7 year-old nephew various risque RAF ditties set to famous opera tunes, whist making dangerous home-brewed alcoholic beverages and taking apart perfectly good clocks, which never worked again.
I blame the humidity and all those fungal spores. Even now, I sometimes catch myself humming the words of one scurrilous ditty or another.
Incidentally, I once moved in horsey circles but became disenchanted by items such as weaving bars. I assuage my guilt via a regular donation to Redwings, along with regular apples and carrots to the local hosses, which for some reason are all Clydesdales. One fine chap goes shrimping in the Lune estuary. Another pulls the plow at local hedge-laying and plowing competitions. They have large, hairy hooves and a fine disposition.
But I am rambling now........
Lataxe, ready for his pit.
Lataxe old bean,
We are not in disagreement. I would be the last to hold out for one technology over another. Indeed the point I was feebly trying to make was that there is a place in the spectrum for all types of technology- and that personal bias often blinds the individual to the options he has.
Given your example of the router carvings, the production furniture designer would be better served to design to the limitations of his machinery, or to add some skilled hand work to the process, to at least clean up and refine the router carvings.
Your desire for a "required handtool" list reminds me of a similar request on another forum for a short list of required tools to carry on one's vintage motorcycle in order to be able to complete a long trip. The list grew from 10 or 12 basic items (pliers, screwdriver, wrenches...), to 20-30 (spare plugs, points, bulbs...), to...as more and more folks added their own necessities (siphon hose, tow-ropes, garnered from painful personal experience) to those of the others. (A cell phone was the most technologically advanced, and simplest, suggestion.)
It's often been said that the 18th century cabinetmaker got by with all he needed in a 2'x2'x3' tool chest. Your own personal toolbox will no doubt be influenced by the kind of woodworking you enjoy doing. You'd need one set of hand tools to bodger Windsor chairs, and quite another to make ribband-backed Chippendales. Something else entirely if Mssr. Boulle is your inspiration. Perhaps your personal computer can take the place of the cell phone on my other list?
Pip,pip, cheerio, and all that rot,
Ray
Ray, old sagebrush,
It's that motorbike tool-list syndrome I want to avoid! Ideally, I want one plane-cum-chisel-cum-saw that will allow me to make anything in wood, depending on how I hold and apply it. Sadly, even Philip Marcou cannot make such a tool, although he may have fashioned a shaper-cutter that is nearly that capable.
Inevitably, I will buy some hand tools that turn out not to suit me; and forget to buy others that would be just the job. You chaps must give me the secret formula for minimising the daft choices and the missed opportunities. I believe that this formula is slowly gelling in my Knots cyberspace, as we have these conversations.
Of course, what I have in mind is the dozens of router cutters I have purchased in the past, for reasons that now escape me. Also, I have found myself, in former times, needing to trade in a small and inadequate machine for a proper one. These costly exercises have offended my natural sense of economy and I am now leery of repeating the errors in handtool land.
My lists are coming and going. But it doesn't help when a 500 page Axminster Tools and Machinery catalogue has just dropped through the letter box. Doh!
Lataxe, a not so mysterious shopper.
Lataxe, old chap,
Have I got just the tool for you. On a recent trip to the hardware store, I came across a half-round wood rasp-cum-butt chisel. A perfect combination tool, as you cannot hold the end of the rasp to use it without slicing the meaty part of your thumb, nor can you use the chisel till you grind off all those pointy thingies sticking off that keep it from sliding! Made by a perfectly good company, Nicholson. What the f***were they thinking?
Ray
Ray,
That chisel-rasp sounds like just the thing for the local S&M club. Perhaps we could buy up a box and sell them on at a Huge Profit? Of course, there will have to be a rebadging, using a suitably alluring-but-frightening description of the implement.
I know nothing of S&M, being sensitive to pain, so you will have to come up with the slick marketing term.
Lataxe, perfectly normal in every way.
Lataxe,
I know m&t is mortise and tenon, what is S & M? Sharpen, and Mortise? Sand, and Miter? If you have an ounce of pity, please, please tell me, you're killing me with the suspense. Oh, you cruel, cruel, brute.
Ray
It's a woodworking technique used to great effect for distressing, common tools used are whips, chains, clamps, fire and hot wax.
Since the house is on fire let us warm ourselves. ~Italian Proverb
don,
I thought that was called B & D. Branding my logo, and Distressing the finish.
Ray
what is S & M?
Don't tell him! Let him SUFFER! Oooooohhh!!!! < big grin >
Regards from Perth
Derek
derek,
You are enjoying this a little too much. You frighten me...
...Do it again.
Ray
This is one of those times when a picture is worth a thousand words. No doubt Lataxe will oblige by scanning the appropriate pages of his technical journal.
Mufti,
That particular "technical journal" is kept in a secret place by the ladywife, who only lets me a glimpse one or other of the alarming "diagrams" when I am a really bad little lataxe.
Then I am Very Good for at least a week and often longer, depending on just how memorable the chosen diagram was. Happily, time can mend even the nastiest of recollections.
Lataxe, the Not-That-Brave
That chisel-rasp sounds like just the thing for the local S&M club. Perhaps we could buy up a box and sell them on at a Huge Profit? Of course, there will have to be a rebadging, using a suitably alluring-but-frightening description of the implement.
I know nothing of S&M, being sensitive to pain, so you will have to come up with the slick marketing term.
I don't think you could call it anything but the Butt Rasp. Chrome plate it, bubble-pack it on a red velvet bed, it'll sell itself.My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
John,
Your marketing expertise is fantastic. Some thoughts immediately came to mind, when I visualised your proposed package. I have, however, put them aside as I felt rather queasy.
I herby declare this theme of the thread veboten, in the interests of all our sensibilities, especially mine. Did I mention that I often faint when going to give blood (before they even get the needle in)!
Lataxe the sqeamish
I worked for a home electronics integration company (we sold, installed programmed and did system design for audio, video, HVAC and security tie-in, home theaters and whole house systems/control). One of the guys had one of the ch-fizzles (or fi-chisels?) and beat the absolute crap out of the chisel end, most likely chopping through nails, drywall screws, etc. I took it home and sharpened it for him and bought a set for my tool bag after seeing him use it the same way and not go dull. We were doing a lot of pre-wire jobs and used them for easing holes in framing for our wire runs, since the coax, Cat 5e, speaker wire, lighting control and main control wire shouldn't turn at a sharp 90 degree angle. We also chopped holes when we needed space behind a panel or wall for electrical boxes, etc. They aren't made for any kind of fine work but for rough-in work, they're great.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
high,
I'm glad you found a use for the thing, I knew there had to be one!
Ray
This may seem obvious, but hand planes are part of a tool system. The other part is the bench. You will need a bench that is set up for planning. And that is another story.
I would also like to suggest something I found useful in learning about planes. I have made a couple of Krenov planes to "fill the gap" in my tool needs. LV now carries the Hock Krenov blades, and you can get instructions from many sources. I have David Finck's Making and Mastering Wood Planes, very good. It is very detailed. I would look at building a jack or joiner from the book. They are not as hard to build as many would think. And the results can easily be outstanding. Then if you find you "reach" for one plane size more then others, then that's when you go to LV, LN with your hard earned cash. Another note is that the Krenov blades can be recycled in to new plane size. Another point is that the Krenov plane may be just what you need and you could save the LV LN money for Chisels, Saws .... Hand tools is a slippery slope, but if you buy wise and take care of them, they last a lifetime. Or you may find that a new bench is in order. That's where I am now, looking at new bench options.
This way mistakes are cheaper. And remember to have fun with it. Some people get obsesive about what is "best" and ignore what works... for you.
Best of luck.
Will
"This may seem obvious, but hand planes are part of a tool system. The other part is the bench. You will need a bench that is set up for planning. And that is another story."
I guess I should throw away all my hand planes I have been using quit successfully for many years because I don't have the whole system. ;-) You do not NEED a bench set up for planning. Unless, of course, by "set up" you mean sturdy and comfortable.
When I started out using hand planes I listened to all the hype and old wives tales to the extent that I was sure I could never learn to use them. I would have saved a lot of frustration and time if I had just bought one and started using it.
Bob
I do mean sturdy and comfortable. But I also mean that the "bench" has to hold the work piece securely at in a safe, comfortable and workable manner. What "bench" means from that becomes more dependant on the extent of work being done in your shop. I did not have a bench set up for planing when I started with my first plane, and I found it rather frustrating. I slowly modified my bench to do planning tasks as I have aquird additional planes and become more proficient with them. Taking on new tasks, modify my bench as required. The modifications I have made to the bench have increased the fun, quality, speed, and range of skills of planning.
Chemist clearly has his eyes set on "Veritas 18" fore plane or 15" low-angle jack plane." The work pieces need to be held in place for the use of planes this size. That, to me means a "bench".
Does it mean a custom planing bench, no. But a bench that is set up to do planning and what ever else happens in your shop. Yes it probably does. My point is that the plane is generally used as part of a tool system, the other part of the system holds the work fast. I call that part the "bench" in my small shop.
Hi Will
I think you stated it yourself very well when you said that with experience you learned what works for you and modified your bench accordingly. To me it would be a waste of time to start out trying to get the perfectly set up bench before even knowing what was needed or what will or will not work.
At first I listened to all the rhetoric: my bench had to be so many inches high, I had to have hold fasts and bench dogs and a tail vice, I had to buy this plane for that and that plane for this, I had to sharpen my planes just so, and on and on. As it turns out, some of that was hog wash and some was good info. But it has only been with personal experience that I have been able to decide which was which.
Perhaps I am just venting because of all time and effort (and money) that was wasted paying too much attention to what others said was NEEDED to get started with hand tools when I could have been actually using them and enjoying them.
Bob
Hi Bob
You sound like a kindred spirit.
You are so right about the hype, for this that and the other great tool. This especially applies to power tools. Up here in Canada a leading company (Not LV) produces "new must have power tools" (eg: power measuring tape) that would only sit at the bottom of a drawer. Many cases of solutions looking for a problem.
As to your comments about "truest believers"... those that say you need to do it this way or that way, which is best LV or LN ....
The best tool to buy is the one you will reach for often.
I would also like to drop a thank you note.
I have met through phone and e-mail a true gentleman. Larry Williams of Clarks & Williams.
In the past I have felt burned on mail orders and was reluctant to deal with another US based company (the Canada US boarder is the biggest issue). This month I ordered some of the new floats from Clark & Williams and have received both great service and fine products. These tools are new to me and I know I am going to enjoy learning how to use them. I could not beleave how smooth the surface these tools left on the test scraps! How such a crude looking tool produces results like that is amazing.
It is too often we hear the bad. The above is as good as I have felt about a mail purchase in a long time.
Thanks Larry!
Jason,
I added a Lie'Nielsen chip breaker and blade to a stanley #5 and it upped the performance level considerably. I've heard from friends that they had the same luck by using a Hock replacement.
I own a complete set of restored Stanley's and several Lie-Nielsen. By far the three planes I use the most are the LN low angle rabbit block plane, the LN bevel up smoother, and an old Stanley #7 with Hock blade. I have several other smoothers, the bevel up beats them all (including LN #4 with 50 degree frog. the rabbit block plane does everything you need a block plane to do and more since is can subst. for a shoulder plane. Besides, it fits nicer in the hand. The #7 is used for jointing edges for glue up and flattening large panels. All the other planes are just fill ins. I made my own scrub plane, to cheap to pay top dollar for one of the good new ones. Works like a dream. If you have time, get so old Stanleys anf fix them up. With a Hock or Lie Nielsen blade they work as good as anything.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled