Jointer: no 7 or no 8?

[Anonymous]

Given that Stanley, etc. planes tend to be too light when compared with those turned out by the top makers today should you go for the heaviest option for a particular task when buying on older plane? A 5 1/2 instead of a 5 or a no 8 instead of a no 7? :?

Re 7 or 8 - if you are a collector then of course you should have both.
If a woodworker then you could easily get by without either, if you already have a good jack. They are both a bit specialist, and the 8 more so which means the 7 is likely to be more useful if you must have one.
Re heaviness; in my experience lighter is better if it's woodwork your at, especially if you are likely to do a lot of stuff by hand. A light wooden jack is much easier on the arms than a steel one AOTBE.
A collector might prefer the heavier ones as they tend to be more expensive.

cheers
Jacob

 

[Mirboo]

A collector might prefer the heavier ones as they tend to be more expensive.

:lol:

 

[Philly]

Re 7 or 8 - if you are a collector then of course you should have both.
If a woodworker then you could easily get by without either, if you already have a good jack. They are both a bit specialist, and the 8 more so which means the 7 is likely to be more useful if you must have one.
Re heaviness; in my experience lighter is better if it's woodwork your at, especially if you are likely to do a lot of stuff by hand. A light wooden jack is much easier on the arms than a steel one AOTBE.
A collector might prefer the heavier ones as they tend to be more expensive.

cheers
Jacob

If you are a "woodworker"?? Wow - quite a wide open description that one, Jacob. I'm a "woodworker" and disagree. A longer plane makes for a flatter surface - that's how planes work. So for jointing and flattening longer work a longer plane makes sense.
As to the heavier planes only being of interest to collectors - glad to see you still have the old chip on your shoulder. Personally, as a "woodworker" and a Professional Woodworker tm, I find the heavier planes to be favoured as they help carry though on hardwoods, especially the more gnarly versions. if you work with straight grained, well-behaved timbers then light is fine.
Philly

 

[Paul Chapman]

I agree with Philly. In my experience, where metal planes are concerned, a heavy plane will always out-perform a lighter one. And heavy planes are not as hard on the arms as one might think, because much of the weight is supported by the wood being planed. Where the heavy plane really shows its worth is on very hard woods, difficult grain and the shooting board.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbloke]

Having had a quick trawl thru' Mr Grim's website, most of the work appears to be painted (apart from a table top in sycamore) so I can only assume that the material used for the joinery is a nondescript softwood of some description (not much indication of timber used for the windows) so in that case Mr Grim is probably used to a lighter weight plane and doesn't have the need for a longer metal plane that will adequately deal with more difficult timbers - Rob

 

[dunbarhamlin]

Or to couch it slightly differently, if processing softwoods or more amenable european hardwoods for sustained periods, the lighter tool may be more fit for purpose as the impact on the body outweighs the value of the greater impetus.

Advocates of european wooden planes may too consider the weight of a new fangled metal bodied jointer unnecessary.

(OK, yes, I do like more heft, but I also like Marmite)

Cheers
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

[
A collector might prefer the heavier ones as they tend to be more expensive.

cheers
Jacob

Same old same old eh?

If you actually read the posts Grimsdale, you'd see that the heaviest of the jointers, Clifton #7, is actually the cheapest

I prefer a heavier plane because it has greater inertia (resistance to change of momentum) and so less effort is need to plane hardwoods with it. Yes, i make furniture and use the tools most days.
As Philly says, a light plane works fine on 'easy' soft woods

Maybe you have never used a good quality plane and so are not speaking from experience? You do seem to have a chip on your shoulder that you are happy to expose here over and over and over again.....

As for collections, I used to collect stamps 30 years ago, but I sold them all before leaving school and haven't collected anything since.

 

[Scrit]

I think Jacob makes a valid point about weight and use. Metal (Bailey) planes are certainly easier to adjust than woodies and were ideal for the American market when they were invented because there was a real shortage of skilled labour around. A carpenter or joiner working softwoods in the main is probably going to use a jack for a considerably greater portion of the day than a cabinetmaker working hardwoods. And the longer you use a heavy tool the more tired you'll be at the end of the day. When you consider that a wooden jack is getting on for the same length as a #7 jointer he may well have a point. For joinery work a wooden jack may well be a better tool to use. Always depending on the type of work you're undertaking, of course.

Oh, and I do own a few decent quality planes, plus some woodies and even a few transitionals.......

Scrit

 

[woden]

Whoah, don't know what's kicked off here. I buy into the argument that heavier planes make lighter work - gedit, gedit... I'll get my coat - of hard woods but again I'm not that experienced. On the subject of no 8s being quite rare I'm beginning to rue passing up the purchase of a lovely old 8 on ebay recently. It was the low front knob type, in good nick, but I decided not to bid as it hadn't the frog adjustment screw - obviously of a type that predated its introduction.

I'm still wondering if I was being needlessly cautious as you can still adjust the frog anyway by removing the blade, etc. and have to do this anyway even if the adjustment screw is present. The plane went for a reasonable price too. :?

 

[mr]

Woden you have a pm in your inbox

 

[woden]

Thanks, mr

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with Philly. In my experience, where metal planes are concerned, a heavy plane will always out-perform a lighter one. And heavy planes are not as hard on the arms as one might think, because much of the weight is supported by the wood being planed. Where the heavy plane really shows its worth is on very hard woods, difficult grain and the shooting board.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

When I did loads of stuff by hand I found a light wooden jack really a lot easier esp if doing it for hours at a time because you lift it off at the end of each stroke. But then it's so much more difficult to set, sharpen etc so I don't really use it any more.
Perhaps a light plane with all the benefits of a steel one would be good - carbon fibre, light alloys etc. Has one ever been made?
I bought a Stanley 7 years ago and use it occasionally - usually for improving very long lengths (10ft or more) which have been through my PT which doesn't have a very long bed. For general purposes though it doesn't get much use and could be done without.

cheers
Jacob

 

[Anonymous]

snip
You do seem to have a chip on your shoulder that you are happy to expose here over and over and over again.....
snip

Not a chip - just a different point of view. I'm genuinely intrigued to know what exactly one gets for the money with some of the expensive kit on offer. I've always been deeply impressed by the great tradition of woodwork where so much in the past was done with so little.
I'm also concerned that many newbies tend to think that the way around a problem is to buy some new kit. Often a big mistake IMHO in that perhaps one ought to get to grips with whats on hand before moving on. It affects many other activities - i've spent £s and £s on banjo bits and better banjos in the hopes of improving my performance - but it's all been a waste of money (so far!)

cheers
Jacob

 

[Anonymous]

When I did loads of stuff by hand I found a light wooden jack really a lot easier esp if doing it for hours at a time Jacob

But surely these days no professional woodworker can afford to remove large amounts of wood by hand? One uses machines to get close, and then finish with the plane.

I once saw something in Popular Woodworking that rang true:

A professioanl woodworker cuts the wood, finds it is too thick, knocks the fence over a bit and cuts again so it fits

An amateur (he called them weekend woodworkers) cuts the wood a bit thick and then spends 2 hours hand planing it to size

 

[Paul Chapman]

Perhaps a light plane with all the benefits of a steel one would be good - carbon fibre, light alloys etc. Has one ever been made?

Over the years I believe various manufacturers have tried out different materials. One such plane was the Lewin combination plane which was made from aluminium. There's a very good write-up on it on Alf's website http://www.cornishworkshop.co.uk/lewinplane.html

I do all my planing by hand because I don't have a powered planer. I have a set of Record planes which I bought in the 1970s and a set of Cliftons which I bought more recently, so I am able to do a direct comparison. The Cliftons are significantly heavier and produce superb results in situations where the Records will not. I have the same blades and cap irons fitted to both, so the main difference is in the weight and I have proved to my satisfaction that the extra weight does make a significant difference. I am talking here of planing very hard woods such as oak and woods with difficult grain. In soft woods both types of plane perform as well as one another.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[MikeW]

I think Jacob makes a valid point about weight and use. Metal (Bailey) planes are certainly easier to adjust than woodies and were ideal for the American market when they were invented because there was a real shortage of skilled labour around...

Nah. The American wood plane making industry was as large or larger than what was in England by the mid 1800s. I think the advantage of the metal planes was the ability to mass produce and flood the market with something "better." It was the perception the metal planes were better that even affected the markets in the UK. Eventually, wood plane production stopped on both continents for all practical purposes (for a variety of reasons).

Of course, many of the irons still came from England. Until after the Civil War in the US, the common belief was English steel was better. (And it was for a long period.)

I think that weight definitely has its advantages in harder woods. But in traditional cabinet making woods I don't think the extra weight of a metal plane matters at all.

But at the end of the day, using a my 28" wood jointer is no different than when I used my Ohio #8. Both did what is required of them and I am just as sore with either one.

Take care, Mike

 

[MrJay]

When I did loads of stuff by hand I found a light wooden jack really a lot easier esp if doing it for hours at a time Jacob

But surely these days no professional woodworker can afford to remove large amounts of wood by hand? One uses machines to get close, and then finish with the plane.

I once saw something in Popular Woodworking that rang true:

A professioanl woodworker cuts the wood, finds it is too thick, knocks the fence over a bit and cuts again so it fits

An amateur (he called them weekend woodworkers) cuts the wood a bit thick and then spends 2 hours hand planing it to size

I refer you to your sig,

 

[Anonymous]

When I did loads of stuff by hand I found a light wooden jack really a lot easier esp if doing it for hours at a time Jacob

But surely these days no professional woodworker can afford to remove large amounts of wood by hand? One uses machines to get close, and then finish with the plane.
snip

You have to start somewhere and I started with only a bandsaw (for various complicated reasons) which I used as much as possible to get wood to finished size, then finished by hand which meant lots of planing, no mouldings only bevels, hand done mortices etc. So I was a bit mechanised - careful bandsawing taking stuff a good bit further than saw-mill sawn, and invaluable for ripping.

cheers
Jacob

 

[woodbloke]

I have my fair share of metal bodied planes and woodies in common with most people and I prefer the heavier planes such as my Norris A1 panel. What shouldn't be forgotton tho' is that at the very height of furniture making in England (Regency period, roughly 1810-20) lighter weight wooden planes were used exclusivly...there was nothing else and even into the early 20cent metal bodied planes were not used, 'specially in places like the Barnsley workshop. This pic, taken from 'Gimson and the Barnsleys' by Mary Comino shows Peter Waals (who at one time was one of Gimson's makers) w'shop taken in the 1920's, and work produced here was of the highest quality. His shop at this time did have rudimentary machinery, unlike the Barnsley's of a decade previously:

Spot any metal bodied planes



The rise of the Baily pattern planes at the during the 19cent may have been because they were simply cheaper and more economical to make compared to equivalent woodies and as others have said, the production of the latter started to decline, tho' stll made to this day in Europe by Ulmia - Rob

 

[bugbear]

Having had a quick trawl thru' Mr Grim's website, most of the work appears to be painted (apart from a table top in sycamore) so I can only assume that the material used for the joinery is a nondescript softwood of some description (not much indication of timber used for the windows) so in that case Mr Grim is probably used to a lighter weight plane and doesn't have the need for a longer metal plane that will adequately deal with more difficult timbers - Rob

Not too much edge jointing in joinery either, as opposed to table tops etc in cabinet work.

BugBear