How Necessary is a Specialised Scrub Plane?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I have an improvised scrub plane that I use in the same way as Jacob. I have tried the same work with a jack plane (5.1/2) and for me the scrub plane is quicker. I don't have a particularly radical camber on my jack plane though.

I found the following to be interesting while thinking about the historical aspects of the discussion:
https://literaryworkshop.wordpress....-the-stanley-40-scrub-plane-a-hypothesis/amp/
That scrub theory figures. Schrupphobel - für die ersten Arbeitsgänge am sägerauhen Brett
Schrupp means much the same as scrub as in
Schrupp das Deck = Swab the deck
So Stanley pinched the idea from European immigrants and gave it the name "scrub" ?
In the meantime we had "roughing" planes in various forms.
 
I have always imagined that the name ‘scrub plane’ was simply an English rendition of the German name for that kind of plane ‘Schrupphobel’, the ‘hobel’ part of the word meaning ’plane’. Though I never heard the word used in this context (or at all, in fact) converting the term to a verb, as in ‘Schruppen’ gives—rather oddly—a dictionary translation of ‘to roughen’.
 
"Schrubben" is "to scrub". My big dictionary has "to rough (down)" as the translation for "schruppen".

It's fairly clear that both verbs probably share the same root as our verb "to scrub". My instinct would be to drop the brackets off "down" and to translate the term and change the name to "roughing or roughing down plane" with the obvious meaning of taking an untreated i.e. rough sawn, board and giving it its initial planing to get it roughly in shape as a prelude for further work if desired. The roughed surface could of course be final if you are after a rustic look.
 
It was a speculative venture - they could only guess how they would be used.
Samhay's link casts more light on it The Origin of the Stanley #40 Scrub Plane: A Hypothesis
That's a very internet jockey guess. As in, "here's what I wish were true, because the more productive idea of setting a Jack plane up properly is boring "

Doing actual work by hand to a standard usually makes nonsense supposing go away.
 
DW - I'm not sure I quite follow.
I think we can all agree that continental Europe managed to be quite productive in terms of pre-industrial woodwork.
It would appear that the wooden scrub plane was quite popular during this time, so there must be some utility in a scrub plane. I can see how a wooden version of a scrub plane could work better than Stanley's interpretation.
If a jack plane is more efficient than a scrub plane, why did this only catch on the UK and USA for rough prep work? It could be that European woodworkers aren't terribly innovative, they have different timbers to work (which doesn't hold as they have imported into the UK for centuries) or perhaps it's only the metal jack plane that is superior?
 
https://pinie.cz/en/our-products/scrub-plane-classic
https://pinie.cz/de/unsere-produkte/schrupphobel-classic
One in English, one in German. Another possible theory would be Stanley catering to the very large migrant community. Europeans would of wanted to have their tools and I'm sure Stanley would of been all to happy to sell them a tool they wanted.

The only time I've used one is for removing rubbish from reclaimed wood. With only a single iron and a short sole damage to the tool is nothing to worry about. To have perspective on what these tools were used for and in what process I think we'd need the insight of a German, Eastern European or Russian woodworker.

If we're just talking about what became the "best" way of dealing things without power in the UK, take a look at the Seaton Chest's planes.

Note: Just read the link. Seems likely and I should of read it before posting. But it did fade away. With and industrialised world, what use for a scrub!

David, I'm likely wrong on this but Warren has hinted on this theory. I don't know the chap but he's no jockey and very skilled. Perhaps you could ask on our behalf?
 
Last edited:
... ....
The only time I've used one is for removing rubbish from reclaimed wood. ....
Me too - and it is perfect for the job! Not sure what D_W is so worried about.
I might have a go with it on clean sawn timber at some point.
Reclaiming timber was a major feature back in the day, especially the big stuff from ship building, industry and architecture.
 
I will say also that it's very easy to use. I was able to make the work experience lad get the hang of it. I would say it's the most easy plane to master but very limited in use for me.
 
I will say also that it's very easy to use. I was able to make the work experience lad get the hang of it. I would say it's the most easy plane to master but very limited in use for me.
My ECE is a bit small so I need a rigger's glove on the right hand but apart from that it is the easiest plane to use, even for an absolute novice, and in spite of the small size removes material faster than anything else.
 
A video on making your own scrub plane.
There's no fixed definition of a scrub but these modified 4s (Sellers does one too) are very different from the European scrub and the Stanley version. They are more like hollowing moulding planes. No doubt have their uses.
First thing is the cap iron. This isn't needed on a scrub and would prevent you getting the deep shaving which you need for speed. Pass the ECE scrub across the grain of as flat board and it will gouge out a shaving 5mm deep in one pass.
Second is the blade width - 33mm on the ECE - and camber which is also about 33mm radius (might have to check that). Narrow means deeper - and more material removal.
Don't actually know how they'd compare in use but I'm fairly sure the ECE scrub will remove a lot of material faster and easier
 
I (and others?) am not capable of taking 5mm off a piece of hardwood with any hand plane?
33mm vs a Stanley? Rather a different beast altogether Jacob?
I wonder how long it would take a 33mm blade to flatten the piece he shows in the video, yet mention this (ECE?) plane
as being a time saver?

I'll stick with a converted #4 thanks.
 
Jacob, if you don't need the cap iron, what do you do with it? This is a fairly easy question to answer.
 
Jacob, if you don't need the cap iron, what do you do with it? This is a fairly easy question to answer.
Yes 5mm too much, I was guessing! Just checked - can cut 3mm in softwood easily, ditto in hardwood but with difficulty (piece of sycamore)- 1.5mm blade projection better for hardwoods.
Cap iron on a modified 4 you could just set it back so that the bare blade is sticking through the slot? You'd also have to widen the slot more than as per video and reduce the radius of the camber to get a comparable deep and narrower cut. I widened the slot on my ECE scrub see 4th photo down ^^^^
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/thread...crub-plane.127181/#lg=attachment98394&slide=0
Just had a look at Sellers modified 78. Good idea! Less camber than the ECE. Basically they'll all do something useful but suit certain tasks better than others.
https://paulsellers.com/2018/05/the-stanley-78-scrub-plane-what/
 
Last edited:
sellers has a lot of ideas for people to start with various metal planes, but it's obvious when he tries to demonstrate rough work that he's never done much of it.

The answer with the jack plane is you move the cap back. It's no issue. That's how it's used most of the time.
 
DW - I'm not sure I quite follow.
I think we can all agree that continental Europe managed to be quite productive in terms of pre-industrial woodwork.
It would appear that the wooden scrub plane was quite popular during this time, so there must be some utility in a scrub plane. I can see how a wooden version of a scrub plane could work better than Stanley's interpretation.
If a jack plane is more efficient than a scrub plane, why did this only catch on the UK and USA for rough prep work? It could be that European woodworkers aren't terribly innovative, they have different timbers to work (which doesn't hold as they have imported into the UK for centuries) or perhaps it's only the metal jack plane that is superior?

What you're referring to as a jack and a scrub plane in continental europe are practically the same thing (in length). I haven't seen anything written about the need for a narrow plane when it didn't exist anywhere else (certainly don't see japanese "scrub" planes, or chinese versions of same, either). I don't know if they were working wet wood, etc. The only real use that I've seen for narrow planes is boat planes (which have a radiused sole).

As far as the metal jack plane being superior? At what? They're worse at being a jack plane due to the friction, but they make a better smoother with an adjuster.

I don't think the euro timbers are too much different than what was worked in the UK in terms of workability, etc, and not much different from the US.

It's hard to make the case that the euros really had a purpose made scrub plane for dry wood when the jack plane was the same length. The trouble with the short length is that it pushes some of the flattening work to the next plane, which is generally slower at it (I like the concept of two hands and tried a pair of continental planes to do initial flattening - for things like cabinet sides, the loss of flatness is too significant).

What most people don't do now is set a jack like a jack plane. Meaning that at depth, it's cutting somewhere around 2/3rds of its actual width and is nowhere close to having the corners of the iron in a cut.
 
I will say also that it's very easy to use. I was able to make the work experience lad get the hang of it. I would say it's the most easy plane to master but very limited in use for me.

I think that's the draw, that people perceive a scrub plane as simple, no cap iron, etc. All of the stuff that was explained away out of woodworking in the early 2000s because nobody was really doing much work by hand, but it seemed novel. It *seems* novel, but if it were useful, the narrow planes made for boat work would've transferred over to cabinet work.

Seaton chest - two jacks as I recall (I have the book floating around here). Warren also doesn't use a scrub plane, but It isn't something I learned from warren for dimensioning, it's just something that I learned from dimensioning. I don't think there was anything remotely close to a scrub, but wouldn't be surprised if the two jacks had different radii (I have two jacks set to work, they have different radii - the one with a really drastic short radius is tough to find a use for as it cuts deeper but cuts less volume and isn't in a full cut as easily. It just planes less volume in the same amount of time, but in theory, I'll find something hard enough to use it.

What most people should have when they think they want a scrub plane is a jack plane set up like a jack plane, and examine the plane while working - how easy is it to use, how easy is it to keep a significant amount of wood in the cut, how does it work with and across the grain, etc. What does it leave the next plane to do?. The jack is just better at all of that, and generally anything too much for a jack (which is probably more than what's too much for a scrub) is suitable for axe, saw or drawknife work.

I'd guess that the reason for the narrow blade on a scrub plane is something to do with sizing doors (you need an iron that will take not the full width of the door, but half of it back and forth as you work a door down.)
 
Me too - and it is perfect for the job! Not sure what D_W is so worried about.

First, addressing the dirty wood, etc. There's nothing about such wood that an old wooden plane won't work on (and better). I'm not sure why there's some thought that filthy wood requires a special oddball plane that costs more than a jack plane by some factor.

As far as "worried about"? I've been down this road. I do most of my work by hand, but to a standard. Not to a chippendale standard, but to accuracy that doesn't leave someone seeing the work as done by hand. I've been down this road, and had all of the planes mentioned here. The question at the beginning of the thread is how necessary is a scrub plane? The answer is, it's not necessary at all, and generally, it's a full step backwards to use vs. a jack properly set (not a jack length plane set up as a smoother or jointer). It is suddenly popular despite not much popularity in the past because of the market of beginners - in the stanley catalog, the scrub plane is not marketed with the bench plane, it's marketed with a bunch of goofy planes like furring planes, etc. It's a trinket.

re: the narrow iron, there's some idea that it can just penetrate deeper and make up for things, but if the corners of the iron get into the work, you're tearing wood rather than cutting it and wasting even more energy. If you resign yourself to the width of the iron, you're stuck with a fraction of it in practice and working less efficiently than a jack. To understand how much work it is to dig the corners of an iron into work to remove heavy work, one can easily do the same trying to push a chisel through wood with the corners buried. It also causes prying and tearing.

Is it something to get "worried about"? Well, only in as much as providing decent advice. Most of the folks who idealize hand woodworking will buy a few planes, try them, get a thrill and then rarely use them. If someone wants to play with two premium scrubs, and hunt down some old ones or convert rabbet planes or smoothers, that's play. Play is fine, this is a hobby.

If there's some attempt to twist the answer into a scrub plane having a productive role in a shop where it works better than a jack plane, it's just incorrect. It's also more expensive.

The answer to the original question is, the scrub plane isn't necessary. And unless the point is just to play, it's not even gainful unless you're a traveling carpenter with only enough room for a scrub plane and refusing to use a power planer attached to a vacuum (and that's a very unlikely thing these days).

I mentioned something about wooden jack planes being hard to find over here, and they are a little harder to find in good shape and of good quality, but the same day I said that, I found two english jack planes for $20 as a pair on etsy here. They were being sold to decorate, turn into lamps or use as door stops. Both were complete and would be fine to use.

I can't imagine converting a stanley 78 or any of this other something for nothing gimmick nonsense that paul sellers provides. That's his job, though - suspension of disbelief gimmickry under the guise of making woodworking accessible when it's already accessible - especially in England.

There are a couple of places here in the states that weren't settled by many and where not much wood grows - those places are referred to as "old tool hell" here. They may have a case about things having been hard to find before the days of ebay, but that's not the case now, either.
 
Back
Top