G S Haydon
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 222
Custard, you have the reality of the situation very neatly summed up!
New hand planes?
- Thread starter BearTricks
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Certainly - but if the thing was decently machined in the first place it would be unnecessary.worn thumbs":1rc5sirm said:
condeesteso
Established Member
Rhyolith":17xtbmsa said:
Interesting indeed, I must pay more attention to new tools (maybe). Seems they have deleted the frog as a separate component, but also added mouth adjustment the way we know on block/low-angles. I don't feel like rushing out to buy one just to play with, but it makes a lot of sense to me and I respect their willingness to make changes.
Regarding the 45 'common' pitch, my point is that if you take away Bailey planes it is not common at all. All my woodies and infills are more around 48. The makers who have real free choice about pitch don't make 45. They all go in a range higher - frequently 52.5 and up. I mean Sauer, Anderson, Philly, etc etc. So if you go out and look at a lot of planes what I say is apart from Baileys you will seriously struggle to find any plane as low as 45.
And here's a weird thing - a small wooden smoother pitched 52.5 with double iron (2 mistakes then), mix of face and end-grain. This plane absolutely beats the very best Baileys I have (LN etc) every single time
Attachments
Corneel
Established Member
There are very good reasons why you might want a lower angle. You don't need to push as hard, and the edge wears in a more favorite manner at a lower cutiing angle. Disadvantage is tearout, but that's why the capiron was invented.
I haven't ever found an old woody plane at anything other then dead on 45 degrees, but I know angles up to 47 1/2 were quite common. In real practice the difference bewteen the two is negligable.
I have been digging a bit deeper, because it is an intersting subject. What was the standard bedding angle before the double iron plane?
I looke in one of these early 18th century German dictionaries. They mention that the normal bench planes are bedded at "Halben Winckel", half angle in English. That is a pretty good description of a 45 degree angle. Later in the text some special planes for ornery wood are described to have 65 degrees or "Halb steil".
Roubo has a nice picture (fig 6). This shows the usual angles, 45, 50 and 60 degrees. The jointer on this plate is 50 degrees.
And have a look at the plane from Melancholia from Duerer. Certainly doesn't look like a very steep pitch.
I would say, pitch between 45 and 50 was the norm for normal bench planes before the double iron planes. Higher angles only for very specific planes. Since the double iron they could get away with lower angles and indeed they did.
I haven't ever found an old woody plane at anything other then dead on 45 degrees, but I know angles up to 47 1/2 were quite common. In real practice the difference bewteen the two is negligable.
I have been digging a bit deeper, because it is an intersting subject. What was the standard bedding angle before the double iron plane?
I looke in one of these early 18th century German dictionaries. They mention that the normal bench planes are bedded at "Halben Winckel", half angle in English. That is a pretty good description of a 45 degree angle. Later in the text some special planes for ornery wood are described to have 65 degrees or "Halb steil".
Roubo has a nice picture (fig 6). This shows the usual angles, 45, 50 and 60 degrees. The jointer on this plate is 50 degrees.
And have a look at the plane from Melancholia from Duerer. Certainly doesn't look like a very steep pitch.
I would say, pitch between 45 and 50 was the norm for normal bench planes before the double iron planes. Higher angles only for very specific planes. Since the double iron they could get away with lower angles and indeed they did.
This may only apply tangentially but one can go back not all that many years on any U.S. woodworking forum and read gushing statements of tear out free performance on any species from Clark & Williams single iron smoothers pitched at 50* with tight mouths. Whether this was just internet hyperbole, purchasers justifying purchases, etc. one can never know but of course the same applies to the stuff you're reading today, doesn't it?
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Interesting thanks.Rhyolith":2jvydm9c said:
Harsh. Fair. But harsh :wink:Jelly":2jvydm9c said:
Sellers has mentioned a number of times that (in the mid 60s as an apprentice) his Stanley No 4 cost him a weeks' wages. Could just be an anecdote/exaggeration of course (I don't have any data).D_W":2jvydm9c said:
I think that's so true for so many fields - professionals (i.e. those earning a living from their craft) use the tools they have, and amateurs (from the French "lover of") lust after, and spend, big money on boutique products.custard":2jvydm9c said:
I've never read of one halfway well-known professional woodworker who claims to get 100% tear out free performance from any plane at all times, places, and species. If somebody can point me to one, I'd be most appreciative. Edit, perhaps Graham Blackburn is the lone exception. Are there others?
Amazing that it seems to be only amateurs routinely achieving this level of performance.
Amazing that it seems to be only amateurs routinely achieving this level of performance.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Indeed. That's what a cabinet scraper's for, innit?CStanford":2yfusun4 said:
Yes.
I don't think Blackburn is a full-time professional maker now. I could be wrong.
I'd be happy to know more about Warren.
Can anybody think of other names we might recognize or if we don't know, should know?
What about those who swore or swear by their Clark & Williams smoothers? Any pros in this group using them day in and day out?
I'd be happy to know more about Warren.
Can anybody think of other names we might recognize or if we don't know, should know?
What about those who swore or swear by their Clark & Williams smoothers? Any pros in this group using them day in and day out?
CStanford":3lemki60 said:
Me, too. I've found his advice accurate, but don't know much about it past that.
https://thechristiantoolcabinet.wordpre ... odturning/
The bits and pieces at the bottom of this blog, and some gushing about Warren from Adam Cherubini are about as close as you'll get to seeing his work. (the turnings look nice, and the comment about them is something that would cause people to choke just like the double iron - turning without sandpaper for 27 years).
Not related to the thread, but I recall warren suggesting that carbon steel tools provide better results for turning and subsequently getting shouted down for suggesting that you can finish off of the tool.
I'm assuming Blackburn did at one time work for a living, either making or restoring. Don't know. I enjoyed the few videos I saw of him, it was no BS just work the wood into what you want it to be.
What church?
Rather surprised it didn't somehow come up in the course of your conversations with him.
sploo":3t9owze7 said:
That's a bummer in terms of work, but if his apprenticeship included lodging and food, probably not so bad.
What I could find a while ago (and I haven't looked it up to make sure I'm being precise) is that early 1900s large metal planes were about $5 US, and the 4/5 size planes were half that or a little more. That was about the wage for skilled labor (for the jointer) or half of a day's wage for small planes. There probably weren't many real apprenticeships left by then in the US. Shortly after, it was the Ford wage for unskilled labor (which before the adjustment was about half of that)...as in the market for unskilled labor was about $2.50 for industry - 1915 or so.
It gets harder to compare prices and wages of things in the US if anything is in the 1920s or after because of significant inflation.
CStanford":n08q2oul said:
It was on an open forum, and was a response to a question I didn't ask. You are fascinated with him enough that you could probably put on your big boy pants and ask on your own.
Recall when you heckled cosman when he wasn't around, asking about his portfolio, and he popped onto the SMC forum one day and I challenged him to ask where his portfolio was. You were still there but as soon as Rob showed up, you were nowhere to be found. This is kind of like that. I notice when Warren is actually present, your tone is different.
Charlie, what comes to mind is that I've seen exceedingly little of your work, and most of your advice has not helped me much (the opposite is true for Warren's advice). Why are you so intent on leveraging other peoples' work, showing yours rarely and then heckling people who are still actually making a living at cabinetmaking or restoration?
Today, I am very close to Ephrata, but aside from paying attention to Warren's advice on planing and sawing and things of the sort, I don't know him too well, so I wouldn't exactly invite my way to his shop. He's probably working on a paying job, anyway, as I notice he doesn't have too much interest in what you or I might be doing.
That's different than being local to George, who I actually talk to and have learned more from (just not double iron plane, George wasn't allowed to use them at CW and his work interests outside of CW don't include cabinetmaking, anyway). I don't see finding George's work to be much of a problem, though, and he doesn't heckle professionals - just people attempting to be seen as professionals without being one. I've never noticed him to be fascinated with Warren, either, or question what he says - perhaps because he's interested in craft and not in building himself up by trying to tear someone else down.
Each time you're intent on questioning someone else, you should put your effort into showing something that you've actually done. If not, you should see someone who can help change the way you think so you could get to that point.
Today, I am very close to Ephrata, but aside from paying attention to Warren's advice on planing and sawing and things of the sort, I don't know him too well, so I wouldn't exactly invite my way to his shop. He's probably working on a paying job, anyway, as I notice he doesn't have too much interest in what you or I might be doing.
That's different than being local to George, who I actually talk to and have learned more from (just not double iron plane, George wasn't allowed to use them at CW and his work interests outside of CW don't include cabinetmaking, anyway). I don't see finding George's work to be much of a problem, though, and he doesn't heckle professionals - just people attempting to be seen as professionals without being one. I've never noticed him to be fascinated with Warren, either, or question what he says - perhaps because he's interested in craft and not in building himself up by trying to tear someone else down.
Each time you're intent on questioning someone else, you should put your effort into showing something that you've actually done. If not, you should see someone who can help change the way you think so you could get to that point.
I don't understand why you take questions about Warren so personally. You invoke him as an expert and a personal mentor, shoehorning him into every thread you can, and then arch your back if anyone dares to ask for more information.
It's not logical.
"The bits and pieces at the bottom of this blog, and some gushing about Warren from Adam Cherubini are about as close as you'll get to seeing his work."
It's not logical.
"The bits and pieces at the bottom of this blog, and some gushing about Warren from Adam Cherubini are about as close as you'll get to seeing his work."
Sgian Dubh
Established Member
He may not be too far out sploo. I don't recall precise figures, but I do remember my first week's wage packet as a trainee cabinetmaker/ joiner in the 70s contained about £7 after tax and National Insurance deductions. The cost of a plane is hazier, but in my mind, something like a brand new Record No 4 (with a stained beech handle [prior to plastic, anyway]) was in the region of £4- £5. Don't quote me on the plane cost - and that really quite large spread between £4 and £5 surely indicates how unreliable my memory might be on this occasion, ha, ha. Slainte.sploo":2ay4iks8 said:
