A Pair of Jack Planes

[D_W]

Hello,

I wonder what vegans expect happened to all the creatures, birds, squirrels, etc. that once lived in the beech tree that became the plane? I would just use hide glue and forget about the issue! :lol:

I suppose, thinking about it, being vegan is rather like those who say they exclusively use hand planes and never sandpaper. More of an ideal than a practical achievement, even if they fool themselves into thinking they have managed it!

Mike.

It's a noble concept, and most of the vegans I've met in real life are less militant than the average click bait news story about anti-meat protests. It's just not something I'd ever undertake. I think it's easier to avoid sandpaper than it is animal products, though!

As for those other things (the squirrels, etc), if the passed the porch of my relatives, they probably got shot and eaten. I'll keep using the hide glue, not sure what Chris will do if he ever separates the handle from the base, but that's probably his issue to worry about, I guess. I like repairable glues, but I"ve never used anything but hide and epoxy, except one stint with gorilla glue on the base of a case years ago (I didn't like it).

 

[D_W]

I think the greats would simply tell you it takes almost as long, and sometimes longer, to prep a surface to standard and finish a piece (admittedly their very high standard) than it might have taken to build the entire thing in the first place. Perhaps you're insinuated the notion of speed at a step in the process where all the best absolutely precluded it. This is my takeaway from any decent book I've ever read on the craft. Maybe a review of available literature, and a more careful and wider selection of sources would clear up misconceptions and clarify a philosophy and approach.

Once a piece is constructed the work is only about half completed.

I don't have misconceptions about it. I'm not building show furniture, either, maybe that's the difference. My approach is as I stated it. the wood is planed to the point of needing nothing or almost nothing before assembly and then final scraping in areas that can be planed occurs after assembly. Inevitably, something gets touched or made dirty and you can't put finish over it after that point. No further surface prep on inside surfaces.

I would assume that most of the finish work historically was done by someone who was skilled in finish, perhaps as a trade. the only time I've approached a large percentage of build time being after assembly was on the first things I made where I sanded entire pieces in three steps, then sealed and then lacquered them and rubbed out the lacquer. I guess gallery furniture might have a finish like that, I don't know, I don't really like that kind of stuff (heavily built finishes), but I"ve seen it sloppily done on local gallery furniture.

I don't think the stuff done to contest winning quality is as common as made, sanded and finished with a thick finish rather than a nice one.

As you may have guessed, I haven't read a whole lot about it. I'm going for a look (which is generally shellac) and not a process.

 

[Trafalgar]

[/quote]

What was the pitch of the plane Derek?[/quote]

45 degrees, Charles ...

Mouth ...

Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... other.html

Regards from Perth

Derek[/quote]

Haughty and audacious in its simplicity. And, oh those surfaces!

 

[D_W]

Haughty and audacious in its simplicity. And, oh those surfaces!

Better than a $35 stanley 4 how?

 

[Trafalgar]

I think the greats would simply tell you it takes almost as long, and sometimes longer, to prep a surface to standard and finish a piece (admittedly their very high standard) than it might have taken to build the entire thing in the first place. Perhaps you're insinuated the notion of speed at a step in the process where all the best absolutely precluded it. This is my takeaway from any decent book I've ever read on the craft. Maybe a review of available literature, and a more careful and wider selection of sources would clear up misconceptions and clarify a philosophy and approach.

Once a piece is constructed the work is only about half completed.

I don't have misconceptions about it. I'm not building show furniture, either, maybe that's the difference. My approach is as I stated it. the wood is planed to the point of needing nothing or almost nothing before assembly and then final scraping in areas that can be planed occurs after assembly. Inevitably, something gets touched or made dirty and you can't put finish over it after that point. No further surface prep on inside surfaces.

I would assume that most of the finish work historically was done by someone who was skilled in finish, perhaps as a trade. the only time I've approached a large percentage of build time being after assembly was on the first things I made where I sanded entire pieces in three steps, then sealed and then lacquered them and rubbed out the lacquer. I guess gallery furniture might have a finish like that, I don't know, I don't really like that kind of stuff (heavily built finishes), but I"ve seen it sloppily done on local gallery furniture.

I don't think the stuff done to contest winning quality is as common as made, sanded and finished with a thick finish rather than a nice one.

As you may have guessed, I haven't read a whole lot about it. I'm going for a look (which is generally shellac) and not a process.

I remember reading an article by Tom Wishhack in I believe an old Woodwork magazine about his penchant for wax-only finishes and his routine was not un-arduous. I still have that issue somewhere, accompanied by photos of work with this finish, and the surfaces were stunning. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

 

[Trafalgar]

Haughty and audacious in its simplicity. And, oh those surfaces!

Better than a $35 stanley 4 how?

No, not at all. In fact I think he used Stanley irons and chipbreakers in a lot of the planes he made. Not all but some. Obviously not in Derek's plane.

The fascinating thing about Derek's post is that he doesn't think Krenov used these planes in a configuration that would have brought the cap iron into play (much). That is what my comment was referring to.

So how should we digest this? Here's a guy known for his surface quality seemingly, and I suppose paradoxically, not using a cap iron much at all. And not even a high-angle plane...

But is it a paradox at all? Can a ("the" ?) standard bearer for beautiful wood surfaces be doing anything considered paradoxical?

An interesting question to me at least.

 

[D_W]

Take a look at the surface on the plane in this thread - you can only see the bevel for effect because the light does not reflect back off of anything else. It is quickly cut with a stanley plane. Nothing else.

It is linseed oil with wax over the oil. Nothing else.

Until we are talking about thin veneers, which are a pain to deal with since the fibers are often separated somewhat making them suck in finish, I really don't know what part of anything else would require (curved surfaces) more than scraping, and if scraping didn't satisfy, burnishing with shavings.

I'm not really looking to imitate the studio furniture makers who manage to take the longest time possible to come up with a nice surface. I'm looking to get it off the tool on the lathe, off the plane on a flat surface, and on mouldings at this point, off of the scraper.

 

[D_W]

Haughty and audacious in its simplicity. And, oh those surfaces!

Better than a $35 stanley 4 how?

No, not at all. In fact I think he used Stanley irons and chipbreakers in a lot of the planes he made. Not all but some. Obviously not in Derek's plane.

The fascinating thing about Derek's post is that he doesn't think Krenov used these planes in a configuration that would have brought the cap iron into play (much). That is what my comment was referring to.

So how should we digest this? Here's a guy known for his surface quality seemingly, and I suppose paradoxically, not using a cap iron much at all. And not even a high-angle plane...

I've seen quotes attributed to krenov (too far back now to recall where, but in some sharpening related topic) to suggest that krenov expressed a preference for easy planing wood.

The answer to your question is pretty simple, though, and it's implicit in a proper set for a cap iron (which is one that's not eye bleedingly close on difficult woods).

Shavings on the order of a thousandth do not tear out unless the wood is horrible. So, if as derek describes, you're willing to take many very thin shavings (not a very practical solution following a jack and try plane unless the try plane was set finely), then it works fine. When you have six panels to do and your other option is to take one pass at 5 thousandths and then one more at 1 or 2 thousandths, things are done much faster.

In short, if you're willing to do what Krenov did, it will cost you time. If you're making more money on books, classes, and salary from a school, it probably doesn't matter much how much time you take.

 

[Trafalgar]

I'm not quite following you. I think Krenov finished off the plane quite often. How was his approach different than yours? He used machinery. He wasn't taking half-thou shavings to go from 4/4 rough to 3/4 finished.

I didn't realize you were that production oriented. Are you doing this for a living now?

I've never gotten the impression that taking very fine shavings with smoother was not an orthodox approach.

"When you have six panels to do and your other option is to take one pass at 5 thousandths and then one more at 1 or 2 thousandths, things are done much faster."

David, there is simply no way this results in savings of a substantial amount of time (to the extent it will even work), moreover is presumes the woodworker (Krenov or whomever) never adjusted depth of cut. This is all a huge stretch. Where is this coming from?

 

[D_W]

Earlier this year, under duress (threat of overspending on some junk), I made this case, planed finish, including the mouldings at an angle:

I assure you it isn't lacking because I didn't spend gobs of time on the flat surface going through scraping and sanding. One coat shellac, two coats wax.

http://s3.postimg.org/gfs89otgz/P1080105.jpg

http://s13.postimg.org/hqw9j8fw7/P1080103.jpg

Stanley 4, of course. Pre assembly one thick shaving, two thin. Post assembly, I re-planed the flat surfaces on the top to flush the moulding and had to do quite a bit of scrape on the moulding inside. I apologize that the moulding isn't something more interesting, but it's just a case for a kid's bedroom.

I guarantee that there is nothing at all lacking on the flat surfaces. I could've been more attendant to the needs of the mouldings, but didn't figure that they'd ever see enough light to be worth more trouble.

I expect a finish like this right off of the plane, even if the finish is sheer.

Much standing time was done at this shelf, and slobber dropped down onto the bottom moulding in large quantities, so I still have a chance to fix my sin and spend another 20 minutes in the moulding coves and right the wrong. The flat surfaces are superb.

The T&G I should've been nice enough to wax, but I didn't - one coat of shellac and then pinned on. It will never see as much light as the camera provided here. This wood was overall terrible quality, a reject pallet at a local retailer. The mouldings were not reject pile stuff, but their quality isn't much better. It's low density stuff with not much color (which someone advised me has been taken out of the FAS grade for cherry because it's too hard to get good pink cherry at the mill level now).

nonetheless, I expect the surface to only improve as the wax is refreshed.

 

[Benchwayze]

Hi Mike.

You won't find any sandpaper in my shop. Just the odd sheet of 'wet and dry', for rust cleaning and flattening purposes!

John

 

[D_W]

I'm not quite following you. I think Krenov finished off the plane quite often. How was his approach different than yours? He used machinery. He wasn't taking half-thou shavings to go from 4/4 rough to 3/4 finished.

I didn't realize you were that production oriented. Are you doing this for a living now?

I've never gotten the impression that taking very fine shavings with smoother was not an orthodox approach.

"When you have six panels to do and your other option is to take one pass at 5 thousandths and then one more at 1 or 2 thousandths, things are done much faster."

David, there is simply no way this results in savings of a substantial amount of time, moreover is presumes Krenov never adjusted his depth to cut. Come on now, this is getting silly again.

I don't finish off of a machine most of the time. As you well know, I have mentioned multiple times that the largest time gain is at the penultimate step. I'm sure krenov could vary his shaving thickness, but I'll bet he was pretty cautious in quartered wood. If he wasn't, he'd have tearout with his setup. I won't. It's pretty simple.

The difference between what krenov does and what I've done just in the smoothing step would be half an hour, I'd bet, unless he has agreeable wood. Any edges showing get the same treatment, not just the flat surfaces. If the machines leave any tearout, then it's more to work through.

If one doesn't use machines for everything, it's more than a half an hour of time savings for the prior step, and while planing is nice, planing a million small shavings when forced.

I don't do it for a living, do you? I do expect to forgo sanding and not spend gobs of time taking tiny shavings. That's a pretty simple goal.

 

[D_W]

Correction, I must've sanded parts of those mouldings, because that's what I said I did when I posted the original pictures. Maybe that's why they look so dull!!

I don't know why I said I don't have the proper radius for them, as I've got a gaggle of curved scrapers. Who knows what I was thinking at the time, but looking at the pictures of the mouldings vs. the rest of the case, not the right thing. It would've taken no more time to find a fitting multi-radius scraper as that's what i'd normally do on those. that can be righted when the slobber marks are repaired.

 

[Trafalgar]

I build for a living, yes. Not always furniture though.

I don't think most fine furniture makers are concerned about a half hour at the stage of the game where the smoother is being brought into play, and especially so on the broad surfaces that will be the most seen, well, because they're the broad surfaces.

I personally don't approach any project expecting to forgo anything, but that's the pessimist in me coming out. Nor do I feel a sense of defeat, or even that much dread, if sanding becomes necessary. A lot of the time I plan on sanding in a linseed oil finish anyway. So I have sandpaper in hand by design. Gene Landon used it, no reason us mere mortals need to be ashamed or think that something needs 'fixing.'

 

[Sgian Dubh]

I think the greats would simply tell you it takes almost as long, and sometimes longer, to prep a surface to standard and finish a piece (admittedly their very high standard) than it might have taken to build the entire thing in the first place ... Once a piece is constructed the work is only roughly about half completed.

Charles, the estimating guidance (that I'm familiar with anyway) for production work usually suggests allowing ~30% of a furniture manufacturing job to prep work and polishing. In this case, prepping usually involves things like planes, scrapers, power sanding and/or hand sanding, or variations of those prepping tools/procedures. Polish application primarily involves spray finishing, although there may be hand application of certain agents, e.g., dye, Danish oil, etc. In other words, a job estimated to take 100 billable hours is likely to break down into ~70 hours building and ~30 hours prepping and polishing.

*Edit to add. Said another way, if it takes 70 hours to build a piece, it's likely you'll need to allow approximately 42% of additional time for prepping and finishing, i.e., 70 X 1.42 = 99.4.

I'm sure there are other build + prep + finish proportions people are aware of and use in their estimates or bids. And, of course, there are jobs where the finish application may take much more or less time, but those occasions are usually spotted fairly easily, e.g., a French polishing job, multiple coats of linseed oil, or a spray finish buffed to high gloss won't fit the 'standard' ~30% allowance. Slainte.

 

[Trafalgar]

Correction, I must've sanded parts of those mouldings, because that's what I said I did when I posted the original pictures. Maybe that's why they look so dull!!

I don't know why I said I don't have the proper radius for them, as I've got a gaggle of curved scrapers. Who knows what I was thinking at the time, but looking at the pictures of the mouldings vs. the rest of the case, not the right thing. It would've taken no more time to find a fitting multi-radius scraper as that's what i'd normally do on those. that can be righted when the slobber marks are repaired.

I feel like you're making the easy parts hard and the hard parts easy. Moldings are the one place where you really do want a finish off the plane, you don't want to have to scrape them because of all the hassle of finding or making shaped scrapers and sandpaper can ruin crisp features. Stock selection is at a premium, and the barest shavings a requirement.

 

[D_W]

I build for a living, yes. Not always furniture though.

I don't think most fine furniture makers are concerned about a half hour at the stage of the game where the smoother is being brought into play, and especially so on the broad surfaces that will be the most seen, well, because they're the broad surfaces.

I personally don't approach any project expecting to forgo anything, but that's the pessimist in me coming out. Nor do I feel a sense of defeat, or even that much dread, if sanding becomes necessary. A lot of the time I plan on sanding in a linseed oil finish anyway. So I have sandpaper in hand by design. Gene Landon used it, no reason us mere mortals need to be ashamed or think that something needs 'fixing.'

Honest question, Charlie. Why don't we see more of your stuff?

I'm assuming that "stanford woodworking" on etsy is you, as I've seen your florida gators chairs on it, despite the story saying it's in vermont. Is that correct?

I just went out there, and the listings are expired.

 

[D_W]

Correction, I must've sanded parts of those mouldings, because that's what I said I did when I posted the original pictures. Maybe that's why they look so dull!!

I don't know why I said I don't have the proper radius for them, as I've got a gaggle of curved scrapers. Who knows what I was thinking at the time, but looking at the pictures of the mouldings vs. the rest of the case, not the right thing. It would've taken no more time to find a fitting multi-radius scraper as that's what i'd normally do on those. that can be righted when the slobber marks are repaired.

I feel like you're making the easy parts hard and the hard parts easy. Moldings are the one place where you really do want a finish off the plane, you don't want to have to scrape them because of all the hassle of finding or making shaped scrapers and sandpaper can ruin crisp features. Stock selection is at a premium, and the barest shavings a requirement.

Take a close look at them. I didn't sand or scrape anything to the lines, so all lines are crisp. I would rather threaten a less than perfect finish than remove a crisp line. My first thought as an amatuerish amatuer is that the easiest way to spot things done by someone who hasn't tought much is that lines are rounded over, so I always try to preserve them as a matter of separation. If they aren't completely unharmed, the whole effect is lost.

You are spot on with the comment about stock selection - price and time dictated in this case, and I recall being disappointed in the stock quality (which wasn't cheap). It's unusual not to be able to finish off of a moulding plane unless the stock is poor like this.

The stock off of the "cheap" pile, despite the marks, ended up being more dense and better planing than the 8/4 stick I used for the base. I have other better cherry stock on hand, but it's reserved for finishing my kitchen.

All of that included (kitchen stock, plywood, planemaking supplies) and I'm out of storage space for project wood on something like this, so it's ad-hoc basis.

 

[Trafalgar]

Derek brought up that Etsy site a while back. It is not me. I live in Memphis and that site is out of Vermont as you mentioned. I assume Etsy has a mechanism that would prevent somebody from Los Angeles saying their shop is in New York. That said, it doesn't matter in the end because it's not my site.

I'll post some pictures of a couple of roofs I've fairly recently framed, with a helper of course. More money in it and that's where the work is.

I definitely don't build furniture on spec. Can't afford to. Wish I could. I'd be in the shop right now doing just that.

 

[D_W]

re: the furniture, I would've liked to have known your secret if you could build furniture for money. I don't even know who *buys* it here, even surgeons, etc just buy manufactured furniture and turn it over at a high rate.

It's an interesting coincidence that store's not you. I thought for sure I'd seen the caned chairs that you made with florida gators colors, and the store had a mix of shaker and danish modern when the listings were up.

Whoever it is, they've listed a lot and sold little. My mother sells little things on etsy, and lots of them. I don't see how it's worth the time, but it's her time and not mine. i've never seen much big sell there - perhaps because I'm interested in things that people refuse to pay much for.