Shall I continue lapping this sole ?

[Sgian Dubh]

I thought that people might be interested in something different. More than happy to stop if you want.

No need to stop. What you've discussed and illustrated in the projects you've worked on is very far from the work I've done and do. All that carving and historical architectural stuff is actually a breathe of fresh air to me because it's so different to my woodworking background, but relatable, and therefore fascinating to study, if only in a detached and passive way. Slainte.

 

[D_W]

It's interesting you mention that about wooden planes. In another forum I said to you that I might dig out my old beech try plane, tickle it up and use it for the first time in perhaps twenty years. I can't remember what the subject was in the other forum. Anyway, I did dig out that old try plane. It was manky looking, covered in dust and the iron was a bit rusticated though lack of attention, love and care on my part. Anyway, about 30 minutes of light sanding of the wood, application of some linseed oil made it pretty again (sort of), and fifteen to twenty minutes cleaning up the iron, sharpening it, and tiddling with the cap iron got that fitting nice and tight. Got all set up and went at a lump of rough oak, and it wouldn't work worth a spit.

So a bit of examining the plane's sole using those highly unsophisticated rules I mentioned earlier indicated the sole was concave. To correct it I used my no 7 Stanley and a few strokes took the high spot off at either end. This was followed by a few strokes with a sanding block and a bit 180 grit and a dollop of wax well rubbed in, and the old beech job worked a treat. I think I ought to give that old beech thing a bit more love and attention in the future now that I've resurrected it, ha, ha. Slainte.

The real "air out of the balloon" moment is if you use the wooden plane and a metal plane of the same type over a time period and measure the volume of work done. It's stark, and the feel is different. Increase the bulk of work done on each stroke and the metal plane starts to feel like it has brakes on the bottom.

I guess the inability to get them to fit well makes them unpopular there these days - too bad, as they're dirt cheap there and you guys still had good ones late 1800s. We didn't.

 

[D_W]

I do ask on a regular basis if people think I'm going on too much, so there is at least some self awareness there.

What would we do without your leadership?

 

[Adam W.]

What would we do without your leadership?

You, laughing at your own jokes says it all really.

 

[Jacob]

The real "air out of the balloon" moment is if you use the wooden plane and a metal plane of the same type over a time period and measure the volume of work done. ......

Up to a point (perhaps) and only if you have somebody else doing the sharpening and adjusting.
What makes the steel plane so much more productive is the ease with which the blade can be flipped out, sharpened and put back, in much the same setting as it was to start with. The thin blade speeds up the sharpening (unless you are into modern sharpening of course where everything becomes problematic) and the ease and precision of adjustment is also a major feature.

 

[D_W]

It takes about the same amount of time to get a try plane set again. A very fine smoother might be a different story, but I don't think a fine smoother has ever been made that betters a stanley 4.

Jack plane, even less. The grinder takes the work out of honing and everything is about a minute. The effort lost with a metal jointer in heavier work vs. wood is more than 10 minutes with each sharpening cycle.

 

[Jacob]

It takes about the same amount of time to get a try plane set again. A very fine smoother might be a different story, but I don't think a fine smoother has ever been made that betters a stanley 4.

Jack plane, even less. The grinder takes the work out of honing and everything is about a minute. The effort lost with a metal jointer in heavier work vs. wood is more than 10 minutes with each sharpening cycle.

Yes but we all know that's not true and we all know why woodies are no longer made (60 years or so?) and have been entirely abandoned in favour of the steel plane, except as in interesting delve into old tool fiddling - there's a lot of that about!
The one exception I've found is the wooden ECE scrub, which needs a thick single blade, is very easy to sharpen and doesn't need fine adjustment. A Bailey version wouldn't have any advantage. Wooden rebate planes are good too.
PS 3 exceptions! I'd add a 26" wooden jointer which I've found really useful for one or two very long jobs, newel posts in fact.

 

[D_W]

Woodies aren't made because nobody does rough work with planes other than hobbyists.

If you run a power jointer and power planer, then you're unlikely to follow what I'm talking about.

In the US, apparently site workers liked metal planes because they had an adjuster that was easy to master, and they could be left in a tool box without getting out of tune. By the civil war, machine planing was the way here and the industry of planemakers was mostly junk. By my 1895 M-W catalog, only ohio tool planes were included and those are low quality (sometimes the wood is quite lovely, but it's hard to make beech bad if you saw it in the right direction).

I'm guessing that more hand dimensioning was done in the UK until later on (just as craft survived much longer in continental europe than the US) as the industry supporting that type of work remained - it died in the US much earlier.

The wooden planes made 60 years ago aren't related to the ones made 175 years ago - everything in them was poorer quality.

At any rate, anyone who suggests you can dimension or do penultimate work at the same rate with a metal plane over any span of time hasn't done much of it.

 

[JobandKnock]

My house is 1870s and the original skirtings (baseboards in USA) are rough sawn on the back but machine planed on the fronts, soi even at that stage we were going the same way as you in terms of machinery doing a lot of the work.

Here we actually started the process of mechanised woodworking somewhat earlier than in the USA (e.g. RN dockyards automatic sheave block making, c.1805), but due to other factors mechanisation across the industry took longer; we didn't suffer the labour shortages which the growing USA did. But mechanisation was still fast enough for a lot of wood plane makers here to have gone under before WWI. There also was somewhat less pressure here to convert to metal planes in site work because the predominant construction type here is masonry shell with timber floors, roofs and fittings - so a lot less carpentry than you get in an American-style timber framed house.

Pretty much the only adjustable metal planewein the UK up until WWI were importeftorom the USA (and presumably expensive as a result). Perhaps because this is because Stanley, Sargent, etc had patented most of what was worth patenting in planes (a bit like IBM was with computers), who knows? AFAIK immediately after WWI the only firm to dip their toe in the water with adjustable planes was Edward Preston, but they didn't make much of a dent. Not surprising, seeing as how they were up against the likes of Stanley and Sargent and later on Millers-Falls. In fact it took trade protectionism after the Wall Street Crash for Record, Marples, Mathieson, Sorby, Chapman, etc to start making Bailey type planes in bulk, and for the prices to become affordable. By that time even medium sized joinery shops had been machine dimensioning for maube 30 to 50 years

But that doesn't mean to say that wven as early WWI anyone in a joiners shop was daft enough to prepare timber by hand, because they weren't. And if all you are doing on site is small works, like shooting in doors, it makes little difference if you use a wooden jack or a metal one. Once it is set up you are good to go. But dimensioning by hand really hasn't been viable for joiners in the UK for more than a century - cabiinetmaking, where the margins are perhaps a bit more generous, may be a different kettle of fish

 

[Jacob]

My house is 1870s and the original skirtings (baseboards in USA) are rough sawn on the back but machine planed on the fronts, soi even at that stage we were going the same way as you in terms of machinery doing a lot of the work.

Here we actually started the process of mechanised woodworking somewhat earlier than in the USA (e.g. RN dockyards automatic sheave block making, c.1805), but due to other factors mechanisation across the industry took longer; we didn't suffer the labour shortages which the growing USA did. But mechanisation was still fast enough for a lot of wood plane makers here to have gone under before WWI. There also was somewhat less pressure here to convert to metal planes in site work because the predominant construction type here is masonry shell with timber floors, roofs and fittings - so a lot less carpentry than you get in an American-style timber framed house.

Pretty much the only adjustable metal planewein the UK up until WWI were importeftorom the USA (and presumably expensive as a result). Perhaps because this is because Stanley, Sargent, etc had patented most of what was worth patenting in planes (a bit like IBM was with computers), who knows? AFAIK immediately after WWI the only firm to dip their toe in the water with adjustable planes was Edward Preston, but they didn't make much of a dent. Not surprising, seeing as how they were up against the likes of Stanley and Sargent and later on Millers-Falls. In fact it took trade protectionism after the Wall Street Crash for Record, Marples, Mathieson, Sorby, Chapman, etc to start making Bailey type planes in bulk, and for the prices to become affordable. By that time even medium sized joinery shops had been machine dimensioning for maube 30 to 50 years

But that doesn't mean to say that wven as early WWI anyone in a joiners shop was daft enough to prepare timber by hand, because they weren't. And if all you are doing on site is small works, like shooting in doors, it makes little difference if you use a wooden jack or a metal one. Once it is set up you are good to go. But dimensioning by hand really hasn't been viable for joiners in the UK for more than a century - cabiinetmaking, where the margins are perhaps a bit more generous, may be a different kettle of fish

We were trained to do it all by hand, dimensioning, rebates, mouldings, mortices, tenons, dovetails, doors, windows, stairs, the works (C&G Tops Course 1982) but there wasn't a woody in the whole establishment as far as I know.
Still an essential skill at various points - e.g. lots of fitting, finishing etc. Also long stuff - two faces by hand the other two through the thicknesser.
Our building (ex chapel) 1874 lots of hand work evident, adze or saw pit marks on some beams but also others big band sawn (saw mill). Doors windows very hand made, all panelling hand planed etc. Even a few floor boards hand planed on top but rough adze marks underneath, but most later replaced (I assume) with machined.

 

[Jacob]

...

At any rate, anyone who suggests you can dimension or do penultimate work at the same rate with a metal plane over any span of time hasn't done much of it.

I've done a lot and a metal plane is much faster and easier. Or can you suggest another reason why they were given up by everybody? Was it just fashion?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The grinder takes the work out of honing and everything is about a minute.

Not if for some perverse reason you insist not grinding it and using an oilstone for the whole edge.

 

[D_W]

I've done a lot and a metal plane is much faster and easier. Or can you suggest another reason why they were given up by everybody? Was it just fashion?

I doubt what you're talking about parallels dimensioning wood for a project vs. using planes a little here and there on a work site or at a shop bench. Two entirely different things. Nobody who has a clue how to use two long planes would suggest a metal plane results in less work unless they're taking a smoother shaving, adjusting, and so on.

Dimensioning looks nothing like that. You set the jack, you set the try plane and you plane with them until they're dull. You set the cap iron on them so that you don't have to adjust depth more than once per sharpening rotation and so that you can stretch out the sharpening intervals. You're not familiar with any of this stuff.

 

[Jacob]

I doubt what you're talking about parallels dimensioning wood for a project vs. using planes a little here and there on a work site or at a shop bench. Two entirely different things. Nobody who has a clue how to use two long planes would suggest a metal plane results in less work unless they're taking a smoother shaving, adjusting, and so on.

Dimensioning looks nothing like that. You set the jack, you set the try plane and you plane with them until they're dull. You set the cap iron on them so that you don't have to adjust depth more than once per sharpening rotation and so that you can stretch out the sharpening intervals. You're not familiar with any of this stuff.

Sorry D_W you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Are you making the common amateur mistake of thinking that stock has to be "dimensioned" by hand-planing (if hand planing) rather like timber-yard full length machined PAR?
You wouldn't be the first.
PS The penny drops! That explains your earlier posts when you talked about the many feet of planing you were doing! Got it!
Good for body building but a great waste of time, effort and wood.
PPS Explainer: "dimensioning" has two meanings.
The first is the process of reducing felled timber to usable sizes, by riving, sawing (hand or machine), maybe trimmed with axe or adze, no planes involved.
The second is the process of reducing it to finished component size for the job in hand: from the design drawing or rod; sawing again to length and width, planing to best face and edge, planing to finished thickness and width.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

The real "air out of the balloon" moment is if you use the wooden plane and a metal plane of the same type over a time period and measure the volume of work done.

I've got to admit that I'm highly unlikely to undertake extensive planing, e.g., board truing with any kind of hand plane, wooden, metal, transitional or infill. That sort of thing is just not my bag, although it's true that when I started woodworking back in the dark ages of the 1960s and 1970s I did have to do quite a lot of that kind of work.

Naturally, once I started working in the furniture industry the use of machines became the dominant equipment for working wood, although hand skills still played - and play, a significant part, e.g., cutting joints, wood prep with hand tools, and so on. Still, I take your point, although I'm unlikely to put the comparison you made to the test; when there's any serious wood dimensioning required on my part I'll always turn to the machines if possible. Still, it's kind of nice to have my old woody try plane in decent order again; I must try to not treat as a lost orphan like I did before and keep it in half decent working order. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

Not if for some perverse reason you insist not grinding it and using an oilstone for the whole edge.

Don't worry about it Phil!
If you do site work you get used to not needing a grindstone, then you find you don't need one in the shop either, for routine sharpening thin Stanley/Bailey type blades at least.
This was one of the big advantages of the thin blade - the design making it as effective as a heavy woody blade but 2 or 3 times easier to sharpen. Very easy to over-heat a thin blade on a grindstone anyway, so best avoided.

 

[Adam W.]

I hand plane all the time because I don't have or want a big, loud machine in my workshop. I still manage to build big things. Perhaps that's because I'm not retentive about flatness and can compensate for the lack of it in other ways. I'm not building Chippendale furniture though, but a lot of that is curved anyway.

Flat and finished on the front, is good enough for me. The other faces can just take their chances and are free to do what they want.

At the art school they plane square edge everything and then carve it all off again. As they can only use the planer on Thursdays, there's a rush and a queue.

 

[JobandKnock]

This was one of the big advantages of the thin blade - the design making it as effective as a heavy woody blade but 2 or 3 times easier to sharpen.

And there is the real reason why wooden planes fell out of favour with carpenters and joiners. If you are working on a measure (on price), as many carpenters and joiners have done for generations, the time taken to resharpen a thick blade against how long it takes to sharpen a thin one makes the decision so obvious, bearing in mind that you may need to touch up a blade up a dozen times a day or more on stuff like oak. Nobody in trade in their right mind would want to waste an extra 20 to 30 minutes a day resharpeming a thick blade (especially if you have a nick out of it). This is the same reasoning why we often use power tools over hand tools - it's a matter of earning a living

BTW, Jacob, you weren't alone bring taught to hand prep. They no longer seem to teach apprentices how to do that, but with my apprentices I have always made a point of teaching that, plus hand saw usage, etc before they get anywhere near a power tool. At school in the 1960s they attempted to teach me how to plane with a wooden plane. I just didn't get it (and TBH I now know that neither did the craft teacher). I gave up and switched to metalwork. At home, though, I was already reasonably proficient with a Bailey plane, dad having taught me, and my proficiencywith wooden planes only changed after I started work and was taught properly how to use woodies, mainly moulding planes, though

Jacob is also right about stock preparation - if you are trying to make a living at it you aim to do the absolute minimum with timber in the minimum of time. That means having a rip saw and a planer in a joinery shop this was a given more than a century ago - that or you got the merchant to supply the timber PAR. Hand planing is a luxury nobody has been able to afford for a century and a half - hand finishing on the other hand is a necessity. Can't see a good reason for hand preparation unless you are determined to wear a hair shirt

 

[Jacob]

And there is the real reason why wooden planes fell out of favour with carpenters and joiners. If you are working on a measure (on price), as many carpenters and joiners have done for generations, the time taken to resharpen a thick blade against how long it takes to sharpen a thin one makes the decision so obvious, bearing in mind that you may need to touch up a blade up a dozen times a day or more on stuff like oak. Nobody in trade in their right mind would want to waste an extra 20 to 30 minutes a day resharpeming a thick blade (especially if you have a nick out of it). This is the same reasoning why we often use power tools over hand tools - it's a matter of earning a living

BTW, Jacob, you weren't alone bring taught to hand prep. They no longer seem to teach apprentices how to do that, but with my apprentices I have always made a point of teaching that, plus hand saw usage, etc before they get anywhere near a power tool. At school in the 1960s they attempted to teach me how to plane with a wooden plane. I just didn't get it (and TBH I now know that neither did the craft teacher). I gave up and switched to metalwork. At home, though, I was already reasonably proficient with a Bailey plane, dad having taught me, and my proficiency only changed when I started work and was taught properly how to use woodies, mainly moulding planes, though

Just remembered - we did have a a woody on our course back then it was 3/8" beading plane for finishing off the top of the box we made for our oil stone about week 2 or 3. Did lots of fitting of skirtings and architraves etc all by hand but it was with machine made stock, we didn't do any other moulding beyond the one box.

 

[Ttrees]

A wooden plane looks handy to have for the odd occasion.
Might have a go at making one someday, no question it's faster from what I've seen.
It appears that it can cope with twice the thickness shaving, and should
one work difficult timbers, a short plane isn't very nice on the wrists if work like that needs doing.

Not a matter of how big of small the work is though, doing it more productively makes sense in the long run regardless what one does.
Interesting for the few who don't have a P/T.

Bench height may be another reason why we don't see too many of them nowadays, and from the little I've held one, it's not so nice on the back wrist on my bench height after a shaving.
You notice these things straight away if you have bone issues, and are wary of triggering off a flare up.