Now I knew I had read this but had not realised it was back in 1935. Eh bah gum them ode uns were right arter orl, an so perlite. I am now rounding all my plane irons but thought I would spread the gospel.
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
Ear Moufteh, thee be preaching to converted, bout ah moust sair there nowt to beat rounded irons .
However, I recall Brother Michael of Aberdeenshire scoffing at this fact(takes too long to look up in archives, or I would give reference).
Yup, the one class of human existence to which I take exception is the dogmatists. Thus I have seen many microphotos of cutting edges showing grinding stirations so I hone by hand with bevel up across the blade and get excellent results, yet own just about every sharpening aid made because I was so poor at it.
I believe the article was penned by Charles Hayward although he made a practice of not adding his name to contributions. I feel I have learned more from his writings than of any other and his style is so gently informative.
"I have learned more from his writings than any other..."
Charles Hayward inspired me too when I was a boy-my two favourite books, "Antique Furniture Designs" and "Period Furniture Designs", are so beloved that I had them bound in leather, way back in 1978 .
One of his books prompted me to make this dovetail gauge-the very same one I have used for more than 30years.Philip Marcou
Coincidences abound but my gauge was from my grandfather so could be older than me. I have about 55 Woodworker Annuals and a son who is a hand bookbinder so please do not put ideas in my head. However my wife says a little more doing and less reading will not come amiss!
It is heartwarming to know that the sheer quality of Mr Haywards writings shines through the years and his words are still relevent.
Regards, David.
well if we're getting technical... my ye aulde worlde collection of books for the gentleman cabinet maker are devoid of refrences to honing good wide blades into tea spoons... the exception to the rule being the Bismark plane..
Buttttt.... each to their own...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
This is the whole point, "the rule". There are no rules and anyone can only affirm from experience of all the options, otherwise their utterings are conjecture. Thus I have been to Aberdeen (and enjoyed my time there) and so believe. I have never been to the U.S.A. but know a man who has and I trust him to not lie to me.
I do have fun-kind regards,
David.
The old days have not completely gone away record planes printed a book called planecraft in 1934 1t was and is still probably available from woodcraft.I had a copy from the 70ts and lost it. The new book is a facsimile of the original,its nice to see Charles Haward crossed the pond he also crossed the lake If you are in Cambridge you really are iin Charles Haward country I have sveral of his books I have now had for a long time never get tired of going through.
Regards from Australia
You can make it fool proof but not idiot proof
Edited 6/12/2006 8:25 am ET by Bolts
Its good to know his words are still read and appreciated but I would not quote Planecraft, fortunately not Mr Haywards work. In Pop Wdwkng letters someone wrote to say all irons must be ground dead straight and square and quoted Planecraft as having been in Moses' back pocket. Indeed, page 50 of my 1950 edition more or less say that and I think did a long time dis-service to all us frustrated planers.
Best wishes, David.
'
I did not know that was in planecraft as you say it is wrong when I did woodwork at school in the 1950s we were taught by an older teacher of Charles Haywards vintage the workshop did not have one metal plane or machinery of any sort everything was done by hand sharpening was carried out on a hand turned whetstone grinder and oil stones it has been a valuable experience to have had.I dont imagine Charles Hayward is still alive do you have any information on him.
Regards John
You can make it fool proof but not idiot proof
Edited 6/12/2006 9:53 pm ET by Bolts
Sorry for the delay in replying John, I thought I could put my hands on relevent info re C.H.H. but it must be in the loft.
He died some years back in his nineties I think. Sadly his eyesight had failed in later years but in an interview some time earlier he had come across as a very modest and content man.
Regards, David
Thanks David, he came across in his writings as that sort of man his breadth of knowledge across woodworking and furniture etc I found extraordinary.
Regards John You can make it fool proof but not idiot proof
It is very odd that Planecraft makes no mention of the slightly curved blade, so well described by the Hayward passage, and used by most top craftsmen that I am aware of.
The subtle variation of curve for different tasks is also brilliantly described.
So clearly not "boutique methodology"........
David Charlesworth
David, I never thought that the "old guild" would give up it's secrets so easy. Let the young pups learn. Peace, Pat (I have read the green book many times)
Is the "green book" the one with the passage David mentions? Is it a book one should seek out and study? I'd sure appreciate a title, thanks :)My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
John, The "green book" is the green covered repro of "Plane craft" a compendium of the products made buy Record. It lists and describes almost all that they made, including the narrative of the tradsemans techniques in some cases for bench, block, speciality and combination planes, as well as vises, cramps(clamps to us colonials) and other toys. It is still carried by Leevalley.com I think. It's a very nice read or reference. All the best Pat
The Planecraft book was available fairly recently from Woodcraft I had a 1959 original which I foolishly lent but replaced it in the last year or so with the reprint from Woodcraft it will probably tell you more about hand planeing techniques than anything else I can think of I Have not seen the Hand plane book by Garret Hack but may be of interest.
regards John B AustraliaYou can make it fool proof but not idiot proof
Now the circle is complete,or perhaps we are making a spring. My original posting was prompted by the dogmatic diatribe of some chap, printed in P.W. in response to your article "Learning Curves". At the time I dashed off a clumsy letter, but last week in my browsings came across the Woodworker advice and thought it would be of interest.
Thank you so much for your support over the afforementioned diatribe! I feel that Planecraft has a lot to answer for......
I find it interesting that some craftsmen do/prefer to, work with straight blades, as described in Planecraft.
Robert Wearing has an interesting story about Hampton, one of the authors. He used to visit the technical colleges, demonstrating Record planes. For the multi plane, he bought his own, nice straight grained, mild mannered timber. So Robert primed one of the students to say, " well that is most impressive Mr. Hampton, but how would you get on with this piece of (ghastly twisted) Elm?" Hampton would say, " I'd love to show you, but if I deviate from my programme we won't have time to get to the end" Thus neatly sidestepping the trap!
Was Hampton just a plane salesman or was he a craftsman as well?
The match board jointing technique, is one instance where the straight edge comes into its own, and shooting another. Otherwise I use it only for rebate and shoulder planes.
best wishes,
David Charlesworth
In part David writes, "The match board jointing technique, is one instance where the straight edge comes into its own, and shooting another. "
I'm not a fan of match jointing. There are a number of reasons for this but the main one is that the prepared stock should already have one reference face and a reference edge. Truing an edge is a basic skill every hand tool woodworker needs but in match planing you're taking an edge out of true to match some "where-ever it falls" criteria? Match planing also takes control of face grain orientation and appearance unless you're willing to plane against the grain, which can be risky on some woods. It takes longer fiddle around clamping, hefting and planing two boards than to just do them one at a time. Match planing also doubles any error in straightness, leading to a bad practice of forcing joints closed with clamps. If a woodworker can't plane a square edge, what are they going to do with the rest of a project like door stiles and rails, legs and case corners?
I sometimes wonder if short cuts like "match planing" aren't some of the reasons some people give up on hand tools.
I can't find the concept of match planing in any of the older books and information I have. I don't have Planecraft, is it mentioned there? Does anyone have any idea who first published information on match planing?
I'm self-taught and use straight irons in smoothing, trying and jointer planes. I have noticed that most who had better training use cambered irons in all their planes.
...."it takes longer to fiddle around clampingetc".
I could not agree more. Just never been able to see any advantage in match planing.
But I do like blades a bit cambered for smoothers and jacks- in spite of being self taught.Philip Marcou
It was Mufti, who supplied the "Hayward passage", I'm afraid I do not know where it resides.
Having been taught to plane edges freehand with slightly curved blade, I did not use match planing much, except for joining difficult veneers.
However we find it very useful for joining thin cedar drawer bottoms and bandsawn veneers as well. i.e. When the timber is too thin to easily balance a plane on the edge. In these cases we shoot the edges, from the benchtop, with the two layers of thin stuff clamped to the benchtop between two boards. This is of course much easier to arrange because of my removable tool well and sixteen inch wide bench tops!
We do this "un guided" , just hollowing the long edge and then taking a couple of through passes, exploiting the length of a decent sized plane.
David Charlesworth
Mufti will probably tell you but it looks like it might be from a pre war copy of The Woodworker an English magazine that Hayward wrote for it is still going but a shadow of its former self in terms of that sort of detail.
Regards John BoltonYou can make it fool proof but not idiot proof
I thought it was just me, and I was being ignorant again, so decided to keep mouth shut (for a change).
Didn't we have alongish thread on this with Mike Walace last year?
I do not recall a long thread involving the accused-however it would seem that he is unrepentant/unconverted....Philip Marcou
you expected anything less.??
;)Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
It is very odd that Planecraft makes no mention of the slightly curved blade, so well described by the Hayward passage
As I read this, it doesn't sound like the "Hayward passage" is part of "Planecraft." I'd like to read the work in which the Hayward passage appears, if you wouldn't mind sharing a reference.
Thanks!My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
Hello,
I am a little confused here as my copy of planecraft on page 48 (and Fig 53 D,E,F) shows the variation of the cutting edges of plane irons and the corresponding text states that "according to the work in hand,the shape of the cutting edge may vary." The explanation isn't as clear as ,say, that in "Audels Carpenters and Builders Guide" volume 1 on pages 274, 275 admittedly. In the text relevant to Fig 54 the book (Planecraft)states that "In every case the edge must be at right angles to the side of the iron." But I always took this to mean that the edge or the the tangent to the middle of the curve of the edge was perpindicular to the sides so as to minimize any skew of the blade whilst in the plane. So am I missing something, reading a different "Planecraft" book or just dense? Could someone illuminate this confused soul.Thanks for your time.Edited 6/17/2006 11:56 am ET by geoff7325Edited 6/17/2006 2:47 pm ET by geoff7325
Edited 6/17/2006 2:50 pm ET by geoff7325
Hi Geoff--your message was handy, this is a reply to the topic.
Attached is a scan from a WWII-era Army manual on handtools and their use and care. Thought it germaine to the issue at hand re camber...
I have copy of Newnes Carpentry and joinery vol 1 of a 4 volume set English printed in the early mid sixties but probably originally written earlier the description of the various plane blades is the same as your army manual,a copy of The Australian carpenter and joiner a similar set states the try plane should be square with slightly rounded corners,it would appear to which school anybody wishes to adhear.Ihave always found the slight curve on a try plane when jointing to be an advantage,but to each his or her own. You can make it fool proof but not idiot proof
Sorry for my delay in reading post but just returned from holiday. Of course the answer has been given, but my same source also mentioned in passing ( but not in these words):- the primary purpose of planing true and square is to facilitate the marking and cutting of joints. Thus there is no point in using the smoother until after the joints are cut, when any marks from preparing and holding the work are removed during cleaning up.
I had never come across this advice before and to me it makes sense.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled