Sash ovolo plane sizes.

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Does anyone know, I'm sure several do, how the size of sash ovolo planes relate to the moulding that is cut. I have an old house that I'm constantly renovating and need a short length of ovolo to match up with some existing. I have found an online old tool seller, who has a Mathieson sash ovolo plane which is marked up as 5/8 and also 1. I'm assuming it means a number 1 as I have also seen number 2 listed. Obviously these are a standard sizes, but where are the dimensions taken. Is 5/8 the distance between fence and the upper quirk, or is it the width of the iron, which would give a slightly wider mould, as the planes are sprung? Any ideas?

Many thanks,

Mike.

 

[richarnold]

Hi mike. The 5/8 refers to the distance from the face edge of the sash to the edge of the portion between the mould and the rebate. This middle section is usually the width of the tennon. 5/8 ovolo's usually cut to a depth of 5/16 Which corresponds to the depth of the rebate. The other common size of ovolo found in sashes is 9/16.
I have quite a few spare sash planes that will be available at this week ends open workshop charity bash, but if you can't make it I could put one by for you.
Cheers, Richard

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Thanks for the reply. The mould I'm looking at seems a bit wider than 5/8, as far as I can measure with all the paint. This is why I'd hoped the 5/8 referred to the iron width and the sprung mould might be a little wider. The 5/16 depth seems about right though. The mould here is a heavy 11/16, though it could just be age/paint etc. Perhaps a 5/8 would get me close enough for a bit of fettling with a scraper.

A bit far away for a visit to the charity bash, this weekend, sadly.

Many thanks,

Mike.

 

[Argus]

.

I've often seen these numbered the same nominal size as a No: 1 No a No: 2 - sometimes as pairs.
The available catalogues are not clear on the subject, and I don't know the significance of the two numbers. Are they a first and second pass of the same size or is there a shape difference?

The catalogues only list stick sizes.

Any ideas?

.

 

[Plumberpete]

.

I've often seen these numbered the same nominal size as a No: 1 No a No: 2 - sometimes as pairs.
The available catalogues are not clear on the subject, and I don't know the significance of the two numbers. Are they a first and second pass of the same size or is there a shape difference?

The catalogues only list stick sizes.

Any ideas?

.

I have read somewhere (not sure where) that the No.1 sash plane would be used first to get the profile somewhere close to where it needs to be and the No.2 was then used to clean it up.

I could be wrong though!

Sash planes were usually sold in 1/2" or 5/8" pairs but I have a couple that are larger, presumably for commercial buildings.

 

[AndyT]

.

I've often seen these numbered the same nominal size as a No: 1 No a No: 2 - sometimes as pairs.
The available catalogues are not clear on the subject, and I don't know the significance of the two numbers. Are they a first and second pass of the same size or is there a shape difference?

The catalogues only list stick sizes.

Any ideas?

.

I have read somewhere (not sure where) that the No.1 sash plane would be used first to get the profile somewhere close to where it needs to be and the No.2 was then used to clean it up.

I could be wrong though!

Sash planes were usually sold in 1/2" or 5/8" pairs but I have a couple that are larger, presumably for commercial buildings.

Salaman, in his 'Dictionary of Woodworking Tools' wrote

"Each size is made in pairs, No 1 for removing the main bulk of the waste and No 2 for planing down a shade further and for giving the finishing cut to the profile."

BPM III expanded this to a page of text, stressing that the two planes were the same profile, but one would be set coarser.
I should think that these two sources will have been drawn on extensively by other writers.

 

[Argus]

.

Gentlemen,

Thanks for clearing that up. It's as I had thought ; each plane made successive passes on the work.
(I should have read the reference books.....)

.

 

[Jacob]

The "standard sizes" are toolmakers notions. Different makers may have different standards. Typical tool maker trying to sell 2 planes instead of one, for a 1st and 2nd pass!
Sashes and their details come in all sorts of varieties. The original moulding may have been from a makers "standard" or a well used (and hence modified) plane or spindle cutter. Restoring means matching what's there as best you can. Easy with a spindle blank to get a perfect match, possible with a moulding plane with a bit of fiddling, if it's not too far off to start with.
NB what is often called an ovolo is more likely to have a simple circular profile. I used to do a lot of sashes with the "ovolo" moulding sitting in about 13mm by 5mm, using a 2p piece for the shape of the cutter. Basically a copy of an original which I kept using as standard.
You need to cut out a section of the original, clean off all the paint and have a look.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

I have just bought a pair of 5/8 marked 1 and 2 and the profiles are indeed identical. I have also read that no1 was set coarser for removing the bulk and no2 for fine finishing, but this was only the best guess, seeming that any certainty as to the reason of a pair is not clear. At least the bit I read was not clear at any rate.

This does not make complete sense to me, though. The difficulty in maintaining perfectly congruent cutter profiles and setting the cutters precisely to one another in different planes seems to outweigh any advantage of a roughing and a finishing plane. It does give choice to do so, I suppose. It occurred to me, though, and I might be completely wrong, but would it not be more likely that 2 workers produced the mouldings as a team. There is a lot to do making mouldings for a whole house, or even a row of houses. I think a team of workers makes sense. Slight differences in profile from window to window would not be noticed, from an initially matched pair of planes. I dunno, perhaps it is just a sales opportunity.

I have taken the paint off the moulding now and it still looks to be a bit wider than 5/8 so I will have to do a bit of fettling, but I was expecting that. I wanted an excuse to buy an old plane rather than set up a router table and still have handwork to do anyway. The ovolo moulding is not actually in a sash in my case, but in a vestibule frame trim. The windows that would no doubt have matched have long since gone, long before I came to own the house.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Hello,

I have just bought a pair of 5/8 marked 1 and 2 and the profiles are indeed identical. I have also read that no1 was set coarser for removing the bulk and no2 for fine finishing, but this was only the best guess, seeming that any certainty as to the reason of a pair is not clear. At least the bit I read was not clear at any rate.

This does not make complete sense to me, though. The difficulty in maintaining perfectly congruent cutter profiles and setting the cutters precisely to one another in different planes seems to outweigh any advantage of a roughing and a finishing plane.

They wouldn't need to be "perfectly congruent" - just close enough so that the fine cutter would remove all error left by the coarse cut. Frinstance the first cut could even be a simple bevel, to be then tweaked by the finishing cut.

 

[richarnold]

The reason why sash planes were sold in matching pairs has been of interest to me for a long time, and while experimenting with a pair recently, I may have found a legitimate reason for this.
The planes are by John Lund of London. They produce a profile commonly referred to as Gothic, or cove and astragal. They are numbered 1 and 2 in the usual way, and at first glance would seem to be identical. I was recently demonstrating there use at a MAC timbers open day, working the glazing bar section on a sticking board. I was just using the number 1 plane, and no matter what I did, I could not get the plane to produce the correct profile of leaving the small ball section in the center. A small fillet is always left in the middle, as if not this would leave nothing for the fence to work against on the second pass, but this fillet should only be about 1/32, and is easily removed with a small hollow plane. Try as I might, I was always left with about 1/8" in the center. It then occurred to me to try the number 2 plane, and hey presto it left the smaller fillet. How this is achieved is not by the plane having a different profile, or the cut being deeper. The secret lay in that the fence on the number 2 is shallower than the number 1. The first plane was bottoming out on the shooting board preventing it from cutting any deeper. So although the profiles are identical it is the fence depth that is different.
This all makes sense when you consider that the shoulder line on the stiles, and rails of the sash are worked down to the same depth of 1/4", where as the glazing bar moulding section needs to be slightly off set. This style of glazing bar pattern started to appear in the last quarter of the 18th century, which coincides to the period when sash planes start to turn up in matched pairs. The only trouble with this theory is that it does not make any difference to the later sash ovolo profile, as the shoulders in this case are level on all sections. Maybe it's just one of those traditions that carried on after it's original purpose had gone out of fashion.
Cheers Richard

 

[Jacob]

Interesting and makes sense.
I've done the same bead with home made spindle cutters but removed the "nib" from the glazing bars with a block plane and a quick pass with sandpaper, copying an original.
It's called "quirked ogee, cocked bead and flat with square back" in my book - "Life in the Georgian City" Cruikshank and Burton

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

It does make sense. I was considering a pair of planes by Moseley, which confused me more, so didn't in the end. These were marked:

(Plane 1)5/8 1. 3/4 1.

(Plane 2) 5/8 1. 3/4 2.

What on earth is going on there, the moulding cannot get wider!

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Hello,

It does make sense. I was considering a pair of planes by Moseley, which confused me more, so didn't in the end. These were marked:

(Plane 1)5/8 1. 3/4 1.

(Plane 2) 5/8 1. 3/4 2.

What on earth is going on there, the moulding cannot get wider!

Mike.

Dunno, but 1 3/4" is the most common thickness of sashes i.e. finished size ex sawn 2"

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

I just had a look at the sash ovolo planes that just arrived. Not familiar with the maker, Charles and Co. (warranted and have a pair of dividers crossed with an arrow logo) but the planes are nice enough, in good condition and the irons seem nice enough quality. The wedge in the number 2 is not a great fit and I think a replacement. Easily fixed. Struck a mould with them and it produced something close to what I need, though I think a 3/4 might have been better. Widening the profile a bit with a plough or a moving fillister, and I will have what I want.

Still confused over the 1 and 2 malarchy, though. The fence on the number 2 is slightly shallower than the 1, but by no more than 3/32 in. You almost wouldn't notice it. Would such a little bit make any difference? Surely if the plane was bottoming out on the sticking board, then taking a plough plane to the sticking board would sort that out, rather than the expense of 2 planes. And if one was for roughing and one for finishing, wouldn't the depth stops be more likely to differ then the fence depths? The depth stops seem as identical as the rest. After all, if you plane to depth with the No1 the No 2 will not plane any more, especially with a finer set iron. Is the reason lost in the annals of time, because nothing is really striking home as the obvious reason.