Hello
Would anyone have a suggestion for a text that
contains information on the usage of moulding planes ?
I am hoping for some recipes along the lines
of Jim Kingshotts description in “Special Planes”.
The video was a bit short on detail or perhaps I was a bit short on understanding. My first attempt was more “kindling” than “molding”
Sooo…
It would be nice to have something that describes layout, selection
of grooves and perhaps the order to arrive at some form of
classical shape, say a traditional Victorian window ledge or
some such.
Any such text or am I dreaming ?
I also would appreciate a pointer to similar information
regarding the use of a Stanley 45. Something beyond
the instruction book (I have a copy ).
Thanks in advance for any suggestions
Al
Replies
Hi Al,
Not exactly what you were looking for. Hopefully someone will be along with a book recommendation.
http://www.wenzloffandsons.com/temp/molding_sequence_sml.jpg
And a larger version:
http://www.wenzloffandsons.com/temp/molding_sequence.jpg
In the linked graphic[s] it shows a series of cuts, the order in which to do them. I stopped on this illustration before adding that in cuts 6/7 one would first waste with a plow before the round was used.
Nearly all "simple" molding can be attacked by drawing out the profile and looking at it as a series of plow, hollow and round cuts.
Hollows and rounds can be also used with profiled planes as long as one can mesh the two together so that it doesn't look out of proportion.
Take care, Mike
Hello Mike
Thank you. That is the sort of recipe I was looking for.For cuts like #2 #3 and #4 do you make a guide/fence
or is there a "hand trick" to get these started properly ?Do you have a collection of these recipes ?Al
Hi Al,
In the past I have mostly used a #55 Stanley plow so the angle fences are easily set. Before I had the #55 and since I sold it, I have used a #78 for the angled straight cuts and a plow for the #1 cut.
For short runs it is an acceptable solution. For longer production runs, there can be a match-up issue. I have made profiled scrapers to be able to smooth the transitions from board to board. This is the old method of handling the transitions and how I was shown.
One can also make angled tack boards for cutting the #s 2,3,4,5 positions to guide the #78. It's all the same angle and one planes away the holes left from the tacks holding the guide boards. I've done this once or twice and it worked fine.
I usually make a template of the profile, draw it on both ends of a board and using a straight board or long rule, transfer important layout lines across the face of the board--I even go so far as to number the cuts at times. Something which probably makes my grandfather chuckle [he passed away a few years ago]. He never bothered with such things and his moldings for furniture came out wonderful.
Take care, Mike
Al,
Try this book: The Wooden Plane: Its History, Form and Function, by John Whelan. It has extensive information on molding planes and what they were used for, as well as a treasure chest full of general and specific information on wooden planes, plane makers, and the use of wooden planes. Very thorough and informative. Perhaps it will have what you're looking for.
Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen!
James
Thank you I will try to locate a copy
If you can't find a copy in your library, you can find one here: http://www.astragalpress.com/Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen!
James
While it is possible to create almost any molding profile using a combination of hand planes, you should be aware that most "Victorian" molding and trim work was produced with industrial sized machinery and was bought out of catalogs.
John White, Shop Manager, Fine Woodworking Magazine.
Is there an old/new issue of FWW that covers
the sort of approach that Mike is using.
That is use of a combination plane to create
molding profiles ?Perhaps an article on creating one with hollows
and rounds ?
A search of our index system turned up hundreds of hits for moldings. There was an article in issue #69 about using hollows and rounds to make moldings.
John W.
Thanks but at the moment I don't get thousands...
When I try molding planes or Stanley 45 or even 55
I get ...
Sorry, an error has occurred (ID: 025-228-63205)I'll try tomorrow
Al,I meant to ask Don for permission to repost this series of posts from the oldtools mailing list when I spoke to him on the phone today. He's not in Ohio anymore, he's here working with us. I pulled these from an e-mail he sent me to forward on to a customer so I'm going to post it. He'll be back from a trip tomorrow so he can chew on me if there's a problem, which I doubt. I'm not sure why but the forum software turns an occasional "a" into "####". Something funny about my cut and paste from my e-mail program, I guess.------------Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:54:45 -0400
To: [email protected]
From: Don McConnell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Secrets of the Ancients Needed.Stephen Reynolds wrote:> All right you elitest bastuhds, how do you make molding using
> hollows and rounds? The subject has been danced around here long
> enough. I tried using a plow followed by hollows and rounds and all I
> get are a bunch of lumpy rounded over hills. Someone must know of a
> good book or be able to write up a primer. Come on, give up the
> secrets.Am I ancient enough? :-)I keep thinking that I've seen a relatively thorough treatment of this
subject in one of my references; but, for the life of me, I can't find it
at present. And, the most thorough treatment I've come up with, so far,
is in a relatively obscure and unavailable book, _Details of cabinet
Construction_, of unknown date and part of "The Woodworker Series." As
to books which might be more readily available, there is a brief, though
suggestive, treatment in George Ellis' _Modern Practical Joinery._Furthermore, it is quite difficult to clearly and concisely provide a
"primer" on the topic using e-mail alone. I have yet to find a way to
adequately illustrate curves/arcs using ascii.Having said that, however, I will attempt to give some general written
guidelines in the hopes it will help. If that proves to be tantalizingly
inadequate/confusing, I would consider getting together some illustrated
text, hopefully suitable for posting to a web site.There seems to be a couple of basic approaches to making mouldings in
the manner under consideration. One tends to rely a bit more on the
initial use of the plough plane to establish various limits and
reference points in the moulding, while the other tends to rely a bit
more on the use of rabbet and/or moving fillister planes for preliminary
cuts.Jeff Greene, in _American furniture of the 18th Century_ has one
illustration of the latter approach. He states that this approach is put
forth in Thomas Sheraton's _Cabinet Directory_ (London, 1803).
Unfortunately, I don't own a copy of this, so can't comment on how
thorough or useful it might be. Anyone?The use of a plough plane to initially define aspects of a moulding seems
to be more generally discussed in the references available to me. Though
I was taught the rabbet/fillister approach, I'm currently thinking the
plough plane approach may have considerable merit.Whichever approach one chooses, there are some preliminary steps which
help ensure successful results. First, as Ken Greenberg has already
pointed out, careful selection of stock is quite helpful. Secondly, the
stock needs to be carefully trued up, jointed, and thicknessed. This
becomes especially important if more than one length of moulding will
need to be produced. Additionally, each end of the material needs to be
planed to produce a relatively clean and square surface to aid in layout.[Hasluck, in _Carpentry and Joinery_, 1912, suggests that the ends be
rubbed over with chalk as an aid in seeing the subsequent pencil lines
(about to be discussed). I'm going to try this, especially the next time
I work a moulding in a darker wood such as walnut.]Finally, an accurate full-sized drawing of the profile needs to be
produced. If done on a piece of card, this, then, can be cut out to use
as a template/pattern for marking out each end of the material. In some
instances (such as when you don't have the exact hollow/round), ####complementary profile needs to be produced, to be used as a "mould" to
check the progress of the work all along the length.If the moulding is to be worked on the edge of a wider piece of stock
and sawn off, it is easiest to gauge for the rip cut prior to removing
any material.One last bit of terminology before attempting to walk through the main
steps for producing a few basic profiles. For purposes of this message,
I'll use the term "fillet" to indicate a narrow horizontal flat (|| to
the face of the stock, so, horizontal as the material is lying flat on
the bench or sticking board). Also, for the purposes of this message,
I'm going to use the term "sinking" in reference to a narrow vertical
flat (|| to the edge of the material, so "vertical" as the material is
lying flat on the bench or sticking board). Except in a few more
complex mouldings, sinkings are usually the element farthest from the
edge of the stock.OK. Now, let's attempt to walk through the principle steps in producing ####few simple mouldings. The goal here is to suggest an approach to basic
elements found found in many mouldings.Let's start with a simple cove. As previously stated, we need to use ####template to lay it out on both ends of the stock. Using this as a guide,
we can then gauge in the limits of the arc with a regular marking gauge
or a pencil gauge. My choice would be a pencil gauge, but a marking gauge
can be used to form a light, but distinct, line. Don't go deep with it,
though, as this will leave a burnished "flat" at the limits of the cove
which you can't remove without enlarging the profile.Then, using any suitable plane, we can remove much of the waste by
producing a chamfer *just* to the gauge lines. We can start to form the
concave arc with a gouge of the appropriate sweep, and finish with an
appropriate round plane. If precisely the correct round plane isn't
available, a slightly "quicker" one can be used, and a mould used to
check the progress.Now, let's walk through a simple ovolo. Again, we mark it out on both
ends of the stock with a template. Next, mark out the arrises of the
fillet and the sinking with a marking gauge. We can then use the plough
plane to produce the sinking to its prescribed depth (thus defining
that terminus of the quarter-round), registering the fence of the plane
on the edge of the material. *******************[Side note regarding the use of the plough plane.There has been some discussion regarding difficulty in their use, namely
a tendency to wobble during the stroke. So I can understand some
hesitancy regarding this approach. However, I think this difficulty can
be minimized. First, for this application, one wants to use the 1/8" iron
if available. So the cut is quite narrow. Second, especially for cabinet
scale mouldings, it typically isn't going terribly deep, so it can be set
for a fairly moderate cut and still be pretty efficient. Both of these
things should tend to reduce the amount of effort needed to push the
plane through each cut.Third, the technique employed in manipulating the plane during the stroke
can be of some help. Specifically, even though they need to work in unison,
I find it useful to think of each hand performing a separate and distinct
function. I think of the left hand, on the fence assembly, as performing
the function of pressing the fence firmly against the gauging surface. The
function of the right hand, on the tote or heel of the plane, is to propel
the plane forward. If one can keep these functions focused with each hand,
there is much less tendency to find them working against each other and
producing wobble. Not having to really muscle the plane through the work
helps with this concentration. I know this sounds strange, but try it
before you dismiss it "out of hand." And ... this principle applies to
other fenced planes as well.] ********************Next, the fillet of the ovolo can be defined with the plough plane,
registering the fence on the "off" face of the material. This defines the
other terminus of the quarter round. Gauge the depth of the sinking and
the width of the fillet on the edge and face of the material, respectively,
and the defined waste can then be removed with a chisel and rabbet plane.
Or, just the rabbet plane. One wants to keep the rabbet plane as true as
possible, but in any event, the final cut is guided by the established
depth of the plough cut and the corresponding gauge line.If the quarter-round portion of the ovolo is small enough, it can be
worked directly with an appropriate hollow. Since the hollow is typically
60 degrees and a quarter round is 90 degrees, one will have to use at
least two different "springs" to produce the full arc.If larger, wear and tear on the hollow can be minimized by first
chamfering the bulk of the waste away with a rabbet plane. The chamfer
can be worked fairly accurately by using a miter square to draw a pencil
line on each end of the stock which is "just" tangent to the arc. The
ends of this line can then be used as a guide to place gauge or pencil
lines along the stock left for the quarter-round to determine an accurate
and uniform chamfer.Gauges with wheels at the end of the arms are good for getting down into
these areas. Alternatively, one of the perforated gauging rulers now on
the market can be used by registering the end off the sinking and fillet
already formed.Of course, the quarter-round can be worked entirely with a narrow rabbet
plane. In this case, though, we will want to check the progress with ####mould. And, some means of cleaning up, with a shaped scraper or a shaped
sanding block, will likely be necessary. Indeed, something along this
line will likely be necessary whenever we don't have the precise hollow
or round for a particular arc.Finally, let's walk through an ogee with a sinking. Again, we want to
use a template to mark out the moulding on both ends of the stock. The
arris of the sinking can be marked out on the face of the material with
a marking gauge. The terminus of the concave portion of the cyma curve
can be marked on the edge of the material, using a pencil gauge or ####light touch with a marking gauge.The depth of the sinking can then be worked with an appropriately set
plough plane, registering the fence on the edge of the material. This is
plough cut #1.We will also want to establish the location of the transition from the
convex to the concave portion of the the cyma curve. This, too, can be
done with the plough plane. Again, the fence can be registered on the
edge of the material, and the location and depth of the iron set so that
the far corner of the plough plane iron "just" reaches the transition
point. This is plough cut #2.A gauge line can then be run at the same "depth" as plough cut #2 on the
edge of the material. The waste so defined can be removed with chisel
and/or rabbet plane ... or, with plough cut #3. This cut can be
accomplished by registering the fence on the "off" face of the material,
and making a cut on the waste side of the gauge line until it intersects
with plough cut #2.The concave portion of the ogee can then be worked as described for the
cove, and the convex portion can be worked as described for the quarter-
round as found in the ovolo.Pretty much any moulding, however complex, can be produced by breaking
it down into it's component parts and approaching each part
systematically. In general, one wants to make as many plough cuts as
possible before removing any waste from the edge in order to retain as
wide a surface as possible for registering the fence of the plane.Quirked beads, indeed any quirked mouldings, will, likely, require some
additional consideration and tooling. Slipped edge bead planes and/or
snipes bills and side snipes may be called for in these instances.Hope this helps a bit. I can clearly picture all the above as I type it
in, but I have no idea if it conveys through the text. Let me know if it
doesn't. Also, I've assumed a certain familiarity with basic moulding
profiles and a few terms in an effort to keep this from growing any
longer. Needless to say, feel free to ask questions if any of this is
unclear.Don McConnell
Knox County, Ohio *********************Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:05:12 -0400
To: [email protected]
From: Don McConnell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Secrets of the Ancients Needed.-erratumGreetings again,LATE last nigh I wrote:> ... We can then use the plough
> plane to produce the sinking to its prescribed depth (thus defining
> that terminus of the quarter-round), registering the fence of the plane
> on the edge of the material.
>
> Next, the fillet of the ovolo can be defined with the plough plane,
> registering the fence on the "off" face of the material. This defines the
> other terminus of the quarter round. Gauge the depth of the sinking and
> the width of the fillet on the edge and face of the material, respectively,
> and the defined waste can then be removed ...My mind slipped a cog with the last sentence just quoted.Needless to say, one will have to gauge a line on the edge of the
material equal to the depth of the plough plane cut establishing the
sinking and the defined waste material removed with a chisel and/or ####rabbet plane. *Then*, a line can be gauged on the resulting surface
equal to the depth of the plough cut establishing the fillet and that
waste material removed. Or vice versa.Sorry about that misinformation.Don McConnell
Knox County, Ohio **********************Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:21:30 -0400
To: [email protected]
From: Don McConnell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Secrets of the Ancients Needed.Jeff Schmidt asked:> Specifically what aspect of the plough plane approach has merit over the
> fillister approach? The apparent advantage of the fillister approach is
> that the pocess described in the above paragraph is accomplished with
> one step as opposed to the additional waste removal step required by use
> of a chisel and/or rabbet plane. In your side note on plough plane
> technique, you mention the reduced effort of using a narrow iron.
> Perhaps the regained control of a light, narrow cut is what gives the
> plough a "hand" over the fillister in defining the fillet and sinking?I'm not sure I'm intending to imply that the plough plane approach has
merit over the rabbet/fillister approach. Just that it does have merit.
Which I, initially, was reluctant to consider since I'd been taught the
latter. :-)In any event, in some instances the plough plane approach does require
an additional step. But I think this *may* be offset by potentially
better accuracy and more versatility.Especially if using a rabbet plane, many/most people have some difficulty maintaining perfect orientation as the cut progresses. In other words, if one is judging the depth based on the cut at a single gauge line, one can't be quite certain that the far edge of the cutter isn't cutting deeper than desired. Also, you have the issue of setting up battens, learning to use your fingers as a fence (which can be a useful technique), or devising some other way to limit the lateral extent of the cut.The prior use of a plough plane to an accurate depth, along with a gauge
line on the opposite surface, gives you something by which to judge the
depth of the cut at both extremes. Also, it provides a means of limiting
the lateral extent of the cut.The use of a moving fillister plane does address these difficulties to ####large degree. Specifically, the depth stop should help limit the depth of
cut at the far side (though I have had them move), and the fence obviates
the difficulty of limiting the lateral extent of the cut.Dependency on the moving fillister, though, does require careful planning
regarding the sequence of cuts. The difficulty being that you need to be
sure you have left an edge against which to register the fence. And, as
the work progresses, the material against which to register the fence
becomes less and less. I think this can be a particular problem in small
scale mouldings such as found in cabinet work.Let's also consider a larger scale moulding - one which doesn't present
the difficulty of too small an edge on which to register the fence of the
fillister plane. Instead, let's suppose that the profile is such that
there is a relatively large amount of waste material to remove near the
edge of the stock. The fillister plane can certainly handle this in ####straightforward manner.So, what does the plough plane approach have to offer here? Possibly,
less effort in removing waste material. Specifically, once all of the
plough cuts have been made which require registering the fence against
the edge of the material, the material can be reoriented and a cut made
in from the edge, registering the fence of the plough plane on the "off"
face, until it intersects with the appropriate plough plane cut at right
angles. This involves "moving" less waste, and, possibly, provides you
with a small "bead" (how did small pieces with square or rectangular
cross sections come to be called beads in any event?) which may prove
useful at another time.Note that I'm not avowing that one approach is "best." I think they both
have advantages and disadvantages, and I feel that discussing these can
help people make intelligent decisions concerning their usage. In fact, I
feel comfortable that one approach may have the edge in some situations
and the other approach will have the edge in other situations.
Additionally, especially when the advantages and disadvantages tend to
cancel each other out, I would hope people would feel free to choose
whichever approach they're most comfortable with.Hope this helps a bit.Don McConnell
Knox County, Ohio
Thanks Larry--to you and Don. Much fuller explanation than I took time for.
Take care, Mike
Hi John White--yes, there has been mass production since the industrial revolution. It's a lot easier and consistent for large jobs to use machine made moldings.
Restorations and additions often used hand methods of reproducing existing moldings. In large or well-heeled homes most often crowns et al were plaster anyway. Done by hand, of course.
In the cabinet shop, though, small runs were often made with single and double blade moulding planes and or H&Rs and plows. This is evidenced by the shear number of molding planes and H&Rs available to us 100 to 200 years after the fact.
Too, in Europe, and in particular Britain, hand work survived much longer than in the US. A lot has been made of this in previous threads and I don't want to open that can o' worms again, but it is true.
Take care, MikeIt's been 9 months since I last turned on my shaper...
All of what has been written here sounds good, but the actual doing seems a bit trickier, at least in my shop. I find H&R's a pain to use for the creation of moldings. Take the case of Don's cove. A cove is not quite a quarter of a circle (and they aren't always circular but that's another story). A H&R plane is usually a sixth. So you need multiple passes width wise. And this can be tricky depending on how you waste away with your plow plane. Without fences these planes can meander. So I'm not sure if there's some strategy to how you use your plow. Or do folks start with narrower rounds for example, create a hollow, then work the sides of that trench with a wider round plane? I've had some success using my fingers as a fence.
As my H&R are old English planes, their bodies have shrunk, so, like a smooth plane with a square blade, they can leave gutters at the edges. I'm not sure if these planes are more useful with their irons ground with an ever so slight camber like a smooth plane's, or whether they should exactly follow the sole. I think the former since when you need multiple passes (more than one sixth of an arc) you can clean up the areas between the passes. I'm really thinking of round planes here. Not hollows.
H&R were common in the 18th and 19th centuries. So we can assume craftsmen found them useful. And they appear in at least cabinetmakers kits from the 17th c. But when we start hearing about wasting away with this plane and that or gouges- and you have to be careful not to remove material with your jack plane only to find that you've lost the material needed for the fence of your plow, the process seems SO laborious one wonders how any decent length could be made in a timely fashion. At least- the difference between making a molding - just about any molding, with H&R's as compared to a proper molding plane is night and day, one wonders if a workman wouldn't just be better off to spend his day making the plane instead of making 8' of molding (I'm exaggerating).
Adam
While it is easier to use a dedicated molding plane than hollow and round planes, the hollows and rounds are much more versatile. Many times fenced molding planes aren't practical because it may be desirable for profiles to be some distance from an edge.
I believe problems with molding planes usually stem from a lack of proper shaping and sharpening of the irons. We really need to get more information out about that. It's really not that difficult, but there are sound reasons why nearly every hand tool workshop has to start with sharpening of even the most basic hand tools.
Hollows and rounds do lack fences but the steps of creating many moldings actually create guides for the planes. An example is a simple ogee. Pictured here are the four steps to making an ogee:
View Image
Step 1 is cutting the first rabbet and the second rabbet is step 2.
Step 3 is cutting the cove with a round plane. When a molding permits, I prefer to use a hollow plane first because a hollow will leave signatures or tracks at the edges. In this case using the hollow first would remove the guiding step for the round plane so I started with the round. It wouldn't have been a bad idea to stop a little shy of the layout with the round and come back as a final step to remove the signature of the hollow plane, but properly shaped and sharpened irons let me work fine shavings at the end of each step so I didn't do it here.
Step 4 is finishing off with the ovolo portion of the ogee. The arris or corner formed by the two original rabbets guides the concave sole of the hollow.
Great!
Thank you for posting the extended discussion and the photos.
I think I am beginning to get a framework for creating
my own recipes.One step seems to be the creation of a preliminary
form in the molding that will abet or at least not impede the
use of the next plane.This of course means that you know what those are.
Thanks for the tip on the ogee.When a plane is boxed what is the assumption
regarding the best preliminary form ?Is it correct to assume that the boxing is always intended as the primary guide ?
Boxing is simply to reduce wear on fine corners or points on the molding plane itself. You'll usually only find it on fine details like quirks or corners. Fenced planes are guided by the fence and unfenced planes, like hollows and rounds use other guiding methods. The guide can be the side of a rabbet, a trench cut by a plow, a previously cut portion of the profile or even a batten tacked to your stock. It's like the rest of woodworking, you need to have a sequenced plan to get through the whole process. That plan, and accurate layout are as important as the planes you'll use to get through the process.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled