Replies

1. 
   joinerswork | Apr 24, 2006 03:11pm | #1

   Malcolm,

   Right off the top of my head, (and I have a point there) the first thing that occurs, is it's easier to grip the narrow tapered tail of a coffin shaped plane, while allowing for the use of a wider blade.  Same for the front, plus it saves a little weight, and is more aerodynamic, (less wind resistance).  Vroom, vroom,

   Ray Pine

2. 
   lwilliams | Apr 24, 2006 04:43pm | #2

   Malcolm,

   Before metal workers took over tool design, planes evolved on woodworkers' benches. Those planes fit the needs of the woodworkers who used them. Unlike metal workers of the last half of the 19th Century, woodworkers processed their raw materials with hand tools. The metal workers depended on vises, fixtures and machines to achieve square and flat and their tools are bigger than the product they produce.

   Woodworkers achieve square and flat by feel. The human body has a remarkable built-in level. Carrying a full glass across a room without spilling or even walking upright require this. Tools that woodworkers developed work with the body and are designed to reference plumb and level. That's why you angle your work and not the tool when you want to bore an angled hole with a brace and bit. The planes woodworkers developed had tall profiles with sides that act as reference surfaces for feeling plumb. This is an important feature and I depend on it a lot of the time I'm using a plane.

   I like to show this when I'm out demonstrating. I take a piece of wood with a 1º bevel and clamp it in the vise. I let people fell the difference between a Bailey style plane and a wooden plane with tall sides. With the Bailey they may be able to detect a slight angle, with the wooden plane that 1º becomes quite dramatic.

   Now we get to your question about the coffin shape. A smooth plane with no tote isn't all that comfortable for the human hand. I imagine the first coffin shaped planes were designed for comfort. However I'm sure woodworkers soon discovered the coffin bodied wooden plane was more shape stable than a rectangular one. I've got more information on this stability at: http://www.planemaker.com/articles/benchplane.html

   This is why I cringed a little when I saw Derek's modification to his Spiers smooth plane. If I hand an infill smoother, I'd want one without a tote. I'd want maximum reference for plumb and level. Infills, like wooden planes, had tall sides to take advantage of this. When I read the claims of advantages of low centers of gravity of some planes, I know it's coming from people who aren't aware of their own natural abilities and almost certainly struggle with skills they actually already have.

1. 
   derekcohen | Apr 24, 2006 09:34pm | #3

   Hi Larry

   From your comments about high-sided coffin planes I now understand what Joel was referring to (but did not explain) when he stated his preference for a jointer with a high centre of gravity. I think that both of you are stating that this factor is a big aid in gauging the angle at which one is planing. And I can accept this. It is the same advantage one has when using long mortice chisels over shorter ones.

   The question that was originally asked was "why coffin shaped?". I assumed that this referred to the outline (plan) of the plane, and not the elevation, which is what you are reporting on. I would have guessed that this had something to do with comfort when pushing a plane. Since knowledgeable planemakers, such as Spiers and Norris, chose to make handled smoothers, they must have recognised the advantages of that particular design. As a case in point, the Spiers infill I renovated, adornments aside (since those are superficial in the context of this discussion), followed the configuration of his #7 infill smoother. Note that I am not defending my decision to use this particular design, but rather attempting to broaden the criteria used in choosing a smoother design. The handled version obviously meets a different brief to that of the unhandled version, and it must have been considered satisfactory otherwise it would not have been made or used by craftsmen over the past century or so. Even preferred (?) since it seems to dominate by numbers. What do you think?

   Regards from Perth

   Derek

1. 
   lwilliams | Apr 25, 2006 05:00am | #6

   Derek,My reply wasn't as clear as it should have been. There's not a lot of reason for a coffin shape on a smooth plane unless you have taller sides. I did get to the reasons for the coffin shape later in my post but I thought it was important to first explain the coffin shape was only part of the equation. The coffin shape probably carried over into infills for comfort, as you say but even the infills have the taller profile for tactile plumb registration.I suspect a lot of people preferred toted infills because they didn't want to lift heavy planes for the return stroke. Who can blame them. All that weight increases the work of planing by quite a bit.Generally, most of the untoted infills I've seen tend to be at steeper bed angles. Some of those are single iron and that's what I'd look for if I was looking for one. I don't have a problem with the conversion of your plane. An attractive user is better any day than a collector plane in poor condition. It looks like a good job and that plane will now out last us both.

2. 
   mike4244 | May 05, 2006 05:33am | #13

   Good post, I have made several planes for my own use. The higher sided planes certainly do help to plane a square edge. I never realized why I preferred the jointer plane I made over a jack plane I also made. The jointer is 3" high,22" long. Made from red oak which is not a preferred wood for a plane. This was my first attempt at plane making,about 20 years ago.I expected this plane to be a mockup. Works so well I prefer it over a power plane when planing doors.I can take a heavier cut with the wooden plane,maybe 3/64 or so. No power plane I have ever used will take a cut beyond 1/32",that includes the old PC with the  spiral blades.

   I use the jointer as a scrub plane now. It's a good plane but about 1 1/2" high.I have made two smoothers, both rectangular with rounded edges. Works fine for me, I considered coffin shape,then forgot about it by the time I made each plane.

   Thanks for the good info

   mike

3. 
   AdamCherubini | Apr 24, 2006 10:11pm | #4

   I think Larry's height thing is hooey (sorry Larry). 

   There's absolutley no need to develop that internal level thing, though guys that have it are impressive indded.  The solution to the problem is Larry's try plane with a curved iron.  Its a simple technique to plane an edge square (enough) using one of these planes.  I think he doesn't mention it enough or loudly enough that long planes do more accurate work/ produce the accuracy you need with less effort.  Larry makes the longest planes available today and does so at a level of quality that is unparalleled.  (Just my unbiased opinion, but most reviewers agree).

   It makes sense that the coffin shape exposes end grain and this helps the plane acclimate.  Of course this is more important/noticeable in smoothers, which explains why we don't see the shape in long planes.  Or do we?  Planes from other cultures and other times very clearly were designed in ways that increase exposed end grain.  Whether this was done intentionally to improve the speed of moisture change is unknown, but I think it worthy of suspicion.   

   In my next article (June), the opening picture is of a plane I modified to the 17th century style with a long sweeping curve to its top surface.  This plane is kept in a non climate controlled shop.  Its difficult to tell whether the shape has helped or not.  It certainly hasn't cracked or anything. 

   I guess I'd like to see some of you plane makers explore these earlier styles instead of exquisitely recreating factory made planes.  Check a copy of Goodman's "History of Woodworking Tools" out of your local library and gander at some of the 15th c planes and the funky Dutch jobbies.  There's a smoother in there with a horn that terminates in a volute with a matching volute in the heel that's just beautiful to my eyes.  It is also boat shaped.

   The planes I modified with horns and closed totes are an absolute joy to use.  Not sure why anyone left that design in favor of the stanley upright tote, except for the complexity of the older shape.  High time somebody else gave these a try.  When I first handed them over to the other joiners at Pennsbury, they instantly thought the handles would cause problems and began suggesting improvements.  Now with a few seasons of use (we work once a month), these planes are favorites.

   Sorry I got off the subject a little there.

   Adam

1. 
   Malcolm | Apr 24, 2006 11:56pm | #5

   > In my next article (June) <

   Where, Adam? You're referring to material I don't think I'm aware of!

   Cheers

   Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz

2. 
   lwilliams | Apr 25, 2006 05:01am | #7

   Adam,Even a trying plane with a cambered iron provides valuable feed-back. This feed-back will tell you when you have a square edge. While paying attention to your natural abilities will help you refine them, I assure you already have them.Also, at times, you may find yourself thicknessing small stock. I do that a lot on pieces about seven inches long and an inch and a quarter or so wide. It's important that these have parallel faces and a big plane would be over-kill requiring a lot of extra work. I use a smooth plane to thickness these. Using the plumb reference of the plane sides makes the job considerably faster.On the subject of "hooey," there's something I've been meaning to contact you about. You're the first person I'm aware of who stated that fillisters are cross-grain rabbets. I think this is a misconception and it's gaining currency, I've seen it repeated several times lately. Maybe you have some reference source for this I'm not aware of. If so, please set me straight. I can find no cross-grain use for a sash fillister and the vast majority of standing fillisters have no nickers. In fact, I own the only old standing fillister I'm aware of that has a nicker. The earliest use of the term "fillister" I'm aware of is Black's dictionary and it attributes the term to sash work. I don't normally see cross-grain rabbets in sash. I think the term fillister simply implies an accurate housing with a side and floor at 90º to each other. This definition even works with "fillister head" screws which I often make or buy depending on the use. It also is consistent with what Whelan explains in his book on wooden planes.

1. 
   AdamCherubini | Apr 25, 2006 06:18am | #8

   Re: FillestersYou're right. This question has come up once since that article was published and I poked around, but I never found some "smoking gun" source that said a cross grain rabbet was called a fillester. Though I read that somewhere and now I don't remember where. I'll bet if I spent an afternoon in my local library I'd find it defined thus. Stupid to say, but I really didn't just make the whole thing up. REALLY! You've got to believe me!It isn't SO terrible though. I think its a mistake to confuse sash fillesters, which probably came later with Joe Average moving fillester. Salaman suggests these planes are at least good for cross grain work if not designed for it. All have nickers and skewed irons according to Blackburn. Rabbet planes make rabbets. Dado planes make dadoes.But you're right. There's a level of hooey to my insistance here that's clearly deserving of a pie in the face or seltzer down my pants....something like that. Maybe even the humiliating squirting lapel flower. You should write Chris, then I can respond all huffy and defensive like other woodworking authors. Maybe we could call each other names! I could write something like "The "so-called" wooden plane expert....". Sorry. Its late and I got hit with the silly stick there. I'm better now.Adam

   Edited 4/24/2006 11:18 pm ET by AdamCherubini

3. 
   Patto | May 04, 2006 05:57am | #9

   Pity you mentioned that dutch plane, I was going to suggest that malcom model his next front end after the carved prows on the traditional Kiwi boats they have in all of the museums on the north Island (never been in a South Island museum  - the gargoyles were too interesting in Christchurch)

   Dave

4. 
   AndyE | May 04, 2006 09:43pm | #10

   In my strictly novice opinion:

   Could the reason for the coffin shape allow the user to reach an area a straight/parallel sided plane couldn't? Specifically an inside curve. Like on a pie-crust table where the outer edge is raised up above the level of the field of the table. I have never used a coffin shaped plane or built a pie-crust table, but it would seem to me to be quite the puzzle to get a flat surface next to the moulded edge without a modern router, or mounting the top on a lathe. How was it done in days of yore? Adam?

   My assumption here is that the blade is located at the widest part of the plane body.

   Andy

   "It seemed like a good idea at the time"

1. 
   hammer1 | May 05, 2006 02:10am | #11

   "How was it done in days of yore?"A lathe, powered by an apprentice.
   Beat it to fit / Paint it to match

1. 
   Malcolm | May 05, 2006 05:09am | #12

   So, in summary: probably got something to do with the antecedents of these planes (high-sided coffin-shaped wooden smoothers - thanks Mr Williams), probably got something to do with style and marketability, probably got something to do with weight-saving, probably got something to do with function (nicer to handle).

   We'll never know, because the 'designers' didn't write those things down.

   Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz

1. 
   BG | May 05, 2006 12:20pm | #14

   Malcolm,

   Don't be taken in by all this high fluenten DNA based gibberish...and the great insights of our ancestors. The facts are the smoother is shaped like a woman's body and these neanderthals like pushing them around...tsk, tsk....lol

1. 
   Malcolm | May 05, 2006 01:17pm | #15

   > the smoother is shaped like a woman's body <

   ... and that might be all there is to it! I wonder, sometimes, whether we over-analyse our ancestors!

   mhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz