Finish straight on to planed surface?

[D_W]

I thought we just concluded that nobody can tell the difference between a planed and sanded surface.

A bookcase I showed on here or somewhere else, I sanded the mouldings in a rush because the stock was poor, and planed the rest. There is a fairly stark difference between the two in brightness, but I doubt anyone else would notice.

I've found thus far that I can't subjectively tell the difference between a planed surface and one that is planed, scraped and burnished or sanded, scraped and burnished. No matter what the finish is.

The reason I don't sand much is two-fold - I have no dust extraction to speak of other than a fein vac, and it takes longer (if the three above are similar, it takes less time just to plane if it's feasible). Well, the third being that most of the stuff I finish is either tools (oil and wax) or something finished with shellac and wax unless it's just junk quickie stuff (then shellac and spray lacquer). It takes twice as much shellac to seal a 400 grit sanded surface vs. one that has either been planed or scraped and then burnished with shavings.

Sanding dust is problematic because I have asthma (that only shows up when something triggers it - colds, drastic temperature changes over several days, ....and sanding dust).

Nice start to the chair, by the way. When will we see the finish of it.

 

[D_W]

One other realistic differentiator between planing and sanding.

Brian Holcombe posted a picture of a plane that I made on another forum (which I finish by planing, of course...), and Warren Mickley was easily able to tell that the surfaces were planed. He is also able to tell that Larry Williams finishes his planes by sanding.

I doubt Larry's customers could tell (or would care if they could), but Warren can see the difference.

I think the end of the planing vs. sanding thing isn't as simple as yes or no, it depends on the circumstances. As quickly as we'd rely on FWW claiming there's no difference, someone like Custard will come along and state the need to keep surface treatment consistent. (I don't rely on simplified magazine tests for much when they are things you can easily check yourself).

 

[custard]

I thought we just concluded that nobody can tell the difference between a planed and sanded surface.

I'm not entirely convinced.

I wouldn't stake my life on it but there are some timbers where I think I've seen a particular clarity from a planed surface that gets lost with sanding.

Hey, maybe I'm kidding myself. Maybe it was there but it's transient (perhaps micro "fuzzing" muddies it as atmospheric moisture raises the grain on a minute scale), maybe it was never there at all and it was a trick of the light.

But my vote is that a planed surface is the best possible surface, giving a translucency and dimensionality that makes it appear as if you're almost looking into the wood...just that it's rarely a practical option due to the inevitable planing ridges prohibiting a subsequent surface film finish like varnish or lacquer, and the impossibility of planing curved and shaped surfaces.

Furthermore, my guess is that the best planed surfaces come from low or moderate angle planes. High angle planes get the job done without tear out, but generally leave a surface that needs subsequent sanding to get it acceptably smooth, and that's on harder hardwoods, on softer hardwoods the scraping action of high angle planes just leaves the surface wooly.

But I for one will certainly be experimenting with ultra close cap iron positions, I doubt it will be a regular technique but it would be great to have another option in the armoury.

 

[Peter Sefton]

Anybody would think you have spent thousands of hours on the bench learning your craft custard, most likely working with other who have also tried out a fair few techniques.

Cheers Peter

 

[custard]

Anybody would think you have spent thousands of hours on the bench learning your craft custard, most likely working with other who have also tried out a fair few techniques.

Cheers Peter

That's about the shape of it.

But it's never enough. There's always something new to learn, and there's always something you want to make that's just tantalisingly out of your skill range.

 

[Peter Sefton]

Anybody would think you have spent thousands of hours on the bench learning your craft custard, most likely working with other who have also tried out a fair few techniques.

Cheers Peter

That's about the shape of it.

But it's never enough. There's always something new to learn, and there's always something you want to make that's just tantalisingly out of your skill range.

I am sure you are right on both counts, when I stop learning new techniques or start thinking that's good enough it will be time to pack up fine furniture making.

Cheers Peter

 

[woodbrains]

Furthermore, my guess is that the best planed surfaces come from low or moderate angle planes. High angle planes get the job done without tear out, but generally leave a surface that needs subsequent sanding to get it acceptably smooth, and that's on harder hardwoods, on softer hardwoods the scraping action of high angle planes just leaves the surface wooly.

But I for one will certainly be experimenting with ultra close cap iron positions, I doubt it will be a regular technique but it would be great to have another option in the armoury.

Hello,

I agree about the best surface coming from very sharp, moderate angle planes. I think this is most true without a strong cap iron effect. A strong cap iron effect actually turns the plane into a scraper, and I find that although tear out is tamed, the finish on the wood is never quite as fine as when a cap iron effect is not used. Sanding with fine abrasive then becomes necessary to some extent, just as it is after a card scraper. Unifying the surfaces of planed and scraped areas needs a bit of abrasive. Though this might be just my demand on the surface, I've never asked a customer whether they care or not!

This is why I believe that just relying on cap iron effect is limiting, sometimes an ultra fine mouth and an ultra sharp iron is just the ticket for producing a fine, tear free board.

Mike.

 

[D_W]

That shouldn't be the case with the cap iron. It can hold the chip place well enough to mitigate tearout without smashing it back into the surface of the wood and scraping off a jam.

The place for extreme sharpness is in very soft and uniform woods like the japanese prefer. Certainly, if you're planing good quality white pine drawer sides, there should be no great need for much cap iron, either. But on all medium hardwoods and such things, the finish should be far better than a scraper or something is not set correctly.

 

[woodbrains]

That shouldn't be the case with the cap iron. It can hold the chip place well enough to mitigate tearout without smashing it back into the surface of the wood and scraping off a jam.

The place for extreme sharpness is in very soft and uniform woods like the japanese prefer. Certainly, if you're planing good quality white pine drawer sides, there should be no great need for much cap iron, either. But on all medium hardwoods and such things, the finish should be far better than a scraper or something is not set correctly.

Hello,

Yes, I agree that a surface of a difficult wood planed with strong cap iron effect IS better than a scraped surface, but is still not quite as good as a plane with no cap iron effect in a wood that will accept that, or a very fine mouthed plane for the very last finishing strokes after the tear out has been eliminated, probably from a plane with a cap iron effect.

If you look at the business end of a card scraper and compare it to a plane iron with very close cap iron, they are, to all intents and purposes the same. The card scraper has a turned hook which is the same as the tiny plane blade protrusion beyond the cap iron. The scraper plate is, in effect, the leading edge of a cap iron. This is how the cap iron effect works, and yields much the same result as a scraper, all be it improved, because of the sharper plane iron over the turned hook of the card scraper.

Also, something that has perhaps not been mentioned about cap iron effect, the planes are harder to push over a plane with no cap iron/ backed off cap iron. Working a lot of wood with a close set cap is (more) tiring. Indeed that is a small price to pay for the result obtained, but perhaps should be used sparingly to avoid tired arms. Likewise, higher pitch planes are harder to push.

Mike.

 

[D_W]

I think something is missing here, and that is whether you're setting the plane just to the point where it will hold down a shaving, or if you're setting it so that there's a jam at the point of the cut. The cut isn't like a scraper cut, it's identical to a 45 degree plane cut, but the chip should only have enough tension to hold it in place, and should come out straight, not with any indication that it's been smashed harder than that. A setting that will have cap iron effect at a very thin shaving is exceedingly rarely needed. A more practical set is one where a 4 thousandth chip is straightened briskly, and then the surface is finished by backing the shaving thickness off to a very thin shaving and then making one or two finishing passes for a bright surface.

Effectively, most of the volume of wood removed in smoothing is with a shaving on the thicker side, and then once the surface is uniform, the thin shavings are more similar to a single iron plane. The mouth does not need to be tight for those very thin shavings, even if the cap iron is set off somewhere on the order of 6 or 8 thousandths because the shavings don't have enough strength at a thousandth or whatever it is to lift, except in wood that is defective.

The situation you're describing is one where the cap iron is set too close to the edge.

The common pitch double iron planes are a little bit harder to push when set properly on thick shavings, the same as without cap iron on thin ones. Overall, they are easier to push than a high angle plane, and that's without accounting for the fact that a plane that is not tearing out and that is taking a continuous shaving is more productive to use because it's removing wood predictably.

 

[woodbrains]

Effectively, most of the volume of wood removed in smoothing is with a shaving on the thicker side, and then once the surface is uniform, the thin shavings are more similar to a single iron plane. The mouth does not need to be tight for those very thin shavings, even if the cap iron is set off somewhere on the order of 6 or 8 thousandths because the shavings don't have enough strength at a thousandth or whatever it is to lift, except in wood that is defective.
.

Hello,

This is all correct and essentially what I was saying. However, there is no free lunch. A 45 degree EP or not, the cap iron set close has an effect that setting it back does not have, there is no magic (as good as it is). The leading edge of the cap iron pushes the shaving harder than when the shaving just slides over the top, and this takes effort. A little extra effort, but effort none the less. Cumulatively, all those little extra efforts add up to a more tiring planing session. But like I said, it is worth it when needed.

I have been setting a close cap iron for many years, long before any video experiments on the Internet. I know how to set it close enough but not too close as to stall a shaving, so there is no problem there. I like to use a variety of techniques to get the results I want, though. Back bevels, cap,irons, fine mouths, high EP planes, scrapers. It is all fun and keeps things fresh.

Mike.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Coming in a bit late. Here's another vote for "it depends on the wood and the circumstances".

By-and-large, I either plane or scrape all my finishes.

The only sanding I do is on round (not curved) surfaces. I have a very good ROS, a Festo (pre Festool), which I purchased about 25 years ago, but it has not been used in a dozen years. It is not just that it is unnecessary, or that it is dusty and noisy (even when hooked up to a Fein), but it cannot work edges without removing the hard-fought-for crispness there. Obviously, sanding is needed on rounded sections if you want a smooth, deviationless surface. There is also an clear difference between a sanded surface and a planed or scraped surface in terms of clarity and depth of detail.

I try to avoid mixing finishes. The cut fibres of a plane are cleaner than the slightly dulled fibres of a scraper. It is possible to get an excellent surface from a cabinet/card scraper, especially on the hard woods in Westen Australia, such as Jarrah. One advantage of scraping is that there is so much more control over where and what you need to finish. I also work curves a far amount, and this is the tool of preference here.

Mostly I oil and wax. I do not use built up finishes, such as varnishes. I like Livos Universal Wood Oil for many of the woods I use. It brightens the wood without adding a barrier. I do not see a lot of difference between the finishes of a high angled smoother vs a low cutting angle plus chipbreaker, but they are there. I doubt anyone else would see the difference, or care. Still, it is like not sanding, using a lower cutting angle not only offers a better surface clarity, but it is nicer/less effort to use.

We do these things for ourselves, or at least I do. The finish is like cutting dovetails - I suspect that most non-woodworkers (unless they are steeped in joinery details) could not tell a handmade- from a machine made dovetail, and do not go looking. Do they look first for the depth of clarity in a surface, or the silhouette of the piece?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[JohnPW]

I've just finished a very small piece of rosewood in boiled linseed oil and have noticed a definite difference.

Because it's just a small piece (small knife handle), at first I sanded the sawn surface and then applied BLO; the surface was dull and muddy. I then planed it, immediately the surface was clear and shiny, more so after applying BLO.

 

[Trafalgar]

Furthermore, my guess is that the best planed surfaces come from low or moderate angle planes. High angle planes get the job done without tear out, but generally leave a surface that needs subsequent sanding to get it acceptably smooth, and that's on harder hardwoods, on softer hardwoods the scraping action of high angle planes just leaves the surface wooly.

But I for one will certainly be experimenting with ultra close cap iron positions, I doubt it will be a regular technique but it would be great to have another option in the armoury.

Hello,

I agree about the best surface coming from very sharp, moderate angle planes. I think this is most true without a strong cap iron effect. A strong cap iron effect actually turns the plane into a scraper, and I find that although tear out is tamed, the finish on the wood is never quite as fine as when a cap iron effect is not used. Sanding with fine abrasive then becomes necessary to some extent, just as it is after a card scraper. Unifying the surfaces of planed and scraped areas needs a bit of abrasive. Though this might be just my demand on the surface, I've never asked a customer whether they care or not!

This is why I believe that just relying on cap iron effect is limiting, sometimes an ultra fine mouth and an ultra sharp iron is just the ticket for producing a fine, tear free board.

Mike.

Absolute, pure, and unadulterated truth.

 

[Trafalgar]

I can't remember seeing a commercial furniture maker leave his work from the plane before finishing. We deal with a solid timber in various grain directions, end grain, mouldings, veneers, laminates and inlays. Uniformity of surface preparation across the entire job is required prior to finishing.

My emphasis added.

More truth.

I would add turned parts to Peter's list.

I like stuff that I've done straight off the plane a lot less a few months after the fact. It is frankly flawed, looks hurried, unrefined, incomplete, and inconsistent with other parts of the piece that cannot be finish planed with a bench plane. No more.

That said, I can still plane a test board with the best of 'em... like a high-hurdler who looks flawless over the first four hurdles... doesn't count for squat in the real world.

 

[Jacob]

I think there's a risk of over-thinking things here.
As far as I can recall, across the various things I've made out of wood, I've not had any problems of finish or glue failing because the wood was too smooth or not smooth enough. Most domestic woodwork is pretty undemanding.

Bingo. It's like the argument against a hollow grind. We never actually see chisels that broke because they were hollow ground.

Yes you do - they way I use them anyway! Thinner/hollower is weaker without a doubt.

We don't see glue failing because of how a joint was prepared, and there is no great time difference doing it either way.

You do if you count glue application as preparation. Found out the hard way - glue has to be spread to cover the complete surface of both faces of a joint. It won't spread by clamping force alone and where it is missing is a very weak point.

 

[D_W]

I can't remember seeing a commercial furniture maker leave his work from the plane before finishing. We deal with a solid timber in various grain directions, end grain, mouldings, veneers, laminates and inlays. Uniformity of surface preparation across the entire job is required prior to finishing.

My emphasis added.

More truth.

I would add turned parts to Peter's list.

I like stuff that I've done straight off the plane a lot less a few months after the fact. It is frankly flawed, looks hurried, unrefined, incomplete, and inconsistent with other parts of the piece that cannot be finish planed with a bench plane. No more.

That said, I can still plane a test board with the best of 'em... like a high-hurdler who looks flawless over the first four hurdles... doesn't count for squat in the real world.

You can't scrape other surfaces to reasonably match planed? Burnish with shavings as necessary. Pitiful. As is your finish planing if you can't avoid leaving marks. Too bad.

I fail to believe that's due to anything except lack of trying.

You see Brian Holcombe leaving any marks? Check his blog for pictures.

 

[Trafalgar]

Peter Sefton wrote: "I can't remember seeing a commercial furniture maker leave his work from the plane before finishing."

Peter Sefton's website: http://www.peterseftonfurnitureschool.com/

Watch the video on the splash page. Notice the furniture.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Furthermore, my guess is that the best planed surfaces come from low or moderate angle planes. High angle planes get the job done without tear out, but generally leave a surface that needs subsequent sanding to get it acceptably smooth, and that's on harder hardwoods, on softer hardwoods the scraping action of high angle planes just leaves the surface wooly.

But I for one will certainly be experimenting with ultra close cap iron positions, I doubt it will be a regular technique but it would be great to have another option in the armoury.

Hello,

I agree about the best surface coming from very sharp, moderate angle planes. I think this is most true without a strong cap iron effect. A strong cap iron effect actually turns the plane into a scraper, and I find that although tear out is tamed, the finish on the wood is never quite as fine as when a cap iron effect is not used. Sanding with fine abrasive then becomes necessary to some extent, just as it is after a card scraper. Unifying the surfaces of planed and scraped areas needs a bit of abrasive. Though this might be just my demand on the surface, I've never asked a customer whether they care or not!

This is why I believe that just relying on cap iron effect is limiting, sometimes an ultra fine mouth and an ultra sharp iron is just the ticket for producing a fine, tear free board.

Mike.

Absolute, pure, and unadulterated truth.

I would disagree based on my experience with chipbeakers. The only time I have experienced them requiring more force, or having a scraping effect, was when I started out learning how to use one. At that time I was simply setting it a smidge too far forward. The result was a crinkly, accordian-like shaving.

I do not have an issue with going high angle or chipbreaker, scraping or sanding. They all, however, have a different effect on bare wood. This is not always apparent with all finishes. For safety, I just prefer not to mix methods.

My first choice of plane for all woods is a Veritas Custom plane with a 42 degree frog. The combination of lower cutting angle and chipbreaker leaves the clearest surface of all possible methods. It is just that this is not always practical, and then we need to have other options.

I think that David and I would together argue that those who do not get the desired result from a chipbreakered common angle smoother have not set it up correctly.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

I think that David and I would together argue that those who do not get the desired result from a chipbreakered common angle smoother have not set it up correctly.

Pretty much. And it might be subtle, but it's not difficult. The only time I've ever failed to get results is when whatever I'm planing has been allowed to sit and move some. The solution is simple, though - to make it flat.

The fact that parts of pieces can't be planed isn't that big of a deal. Light scrape, burnish. Same look, same amount of finish uptake (which is the real danger between sanding some parts and planing others).